Twenty Years of the Mode

One Philosophy and

Principles
Who knew?

I still remember the day when I first came up with The Four Modes of Verbal
Communication. It was Thursday, October 4, 1990. Well, nineteen years and just
over three months later, as they say, the rest is history.

To have my principles and philosophies stand the test of time for almost twenty
years is very gratifying for me. I've witnessed many "attraction experts," "seduction
gurus" and dating coaches come and go over the last nineteen, twenty
years. Why? Because they offered "fad" philosophies that didn't have anything to
stand on but tricks and gimmicks.

I believed then, and I still believe to this day, that the most effective way to attract
and seduce women is to simply approach them and let them know what your true
desires, interests and intentions are in the most highly self-assured, upfront and
straightforwardly honest manner as possible. If they reject you, so what. If they
criticize you as a man for being "too forward," so be it.

The one criticism I've always received in regard to my Mode One philosophy is that
my principles are only conducive to womanizers and potential womanizers. Those
men who are only interested in one-night stands, weekend flings and other variations
of casual sex. I beg to differ.

Right now, I am involved in a long-term, emotionally profound relationship with a

gorgeous, intelligent and extremely funny woman (We were just featured in a "Cyber
Love Story of the Week" by fellow Examiner, Julie Spira, and on the Huffington
Post and PR-Inside). Many of my male readers have asked me, "Were you 'Mode
One' with your new girlfriend? Was Mode One behavior effective in attracting her
interest?"

You only get one "dumb" question per week with me.

Of course, I exhibited Mode One Behavior. I let my girlfriend know from the get-go
that I was not going to exchange Email messages with her to discuss reruns of The
Cosby Show. I let her know in an upfront and straightforward manner that I was
attracted to her and interested in dating her. My girlfriend loved the fact that I didn't
spend time "beating-around-the-bush" about my interests. She said so many guys
who wrote her on Facebook expressed themselves in an indirect, beat-around-the-
bush type manner (i.e., what I refer to as "Mode Two" behavior in my book), or they
tried to "pretend" as though their only interest was platonic friendship (i.e., this is
representative of "Mode Three" Behavior).

I have always frowned on men being disingenuous, misleading, manipulative ... or

worse, cowardly ... when it comes to expressing their romantic and/or sexual desires,
interests and intentions to women. When men shy away from approaching women,
they eventually become misogynists. When men mislead and manipulate women, it
simply contributes to the vicious cycle of 'head games' between single men and
single women.

If you are not familiar with my books, please check them out today:

Mode One: Let the Women Know What You're REALLY Thinking

and

Upfront and Straightforward: Let the Manipulative Game Players Know What
You're REALLY Thinking

Also, join me on Thursday evenings for my talk radio show that centers on issues
related to today's dating scene: Upfront & Straightforward with Alan Roger
Currie

Happy New Year and Happy Dating!

Men intimidated by
women? Not so much
I heard a woman on a radio show recently discussing the idea of men being
"intimidated" by women who are intelligent, successful in their careers and financially
self-sufficient. Sorry ladies, but I don't buy into this notion.

In my opinion, there is no such thing as a man being intimidated by a woman. What

many women perceive as a man being "intimidated" is actually lack of interest on
behalf of the men. Some women want to justify in their own minds why men may not
be approaching them if they feel they have a lot to offer. The reality? Men don't place
the same premium on career success and financial success that the vast majority of
women do. Most men value a woman's looks and sex appeal much more so than
they do a woman's level of education, her job title, and/or her earning potential.

I will say this though: There are many men who are intimidated by the prospect of
competing with other men for a woman's attention and companionship. This I know
for a fact, based on my conversations with members of my gender over the years. I
remember years ago, I had a buddy of mine say, "I will never pursue a woman that is
super gorgeous and popular." When I asked him why, he said that he didn't want to
have to deal with other men constantly trying to flirt with his exceptionally good-
looking girlfriend and make passes at her.

This is why many men seem to be "intimidated" by extremely beautiful women and/or
women with an abundance of sex appeal. The first thing that comes to the man's
mind is, "How many men does she already have pursuing her? Are these guys better
looking than me? Do they have a better job than me? Do they earn more money than
me?" Most men won't publicly admit to these sort of thoughts and insecurities, but
many men ask themselves these questions and similar questions from time to time.

In other words, if you took the most unattractive, broke, unemployed, non-confident
and insecure man and transported him to a remote island with ten-to-fifteen very
attractive women ... with no other men within miles of this island ... that man would
have no problem approaching these women and initiating a conversation. There
would be no such thing as an "intimidation" factor.

This is why in the Attraction and Seduction Community, you frequently hear terms
like "Alpha Male" and "Beta Male." An 'Alpha Male' is a man who not only is not
intimidated by the idea of competing with other men for a woman's attention, he
actually looks forward to it. Primarily because he believes he will usually come out on
top. A 'Beta Male' is a man who generally tends to exhibit behavior that is more
passive, reactive and deferential. Most, if not all Beta males will shy away
from competition with other males for popularity, status, power, success and women.
The Beta Males will frequently acquiesce to the Alpha Male (this is why most
paperbacks and eBooks in the Seduction Community will have titles like, "How to
become a Confident, Dominant Alpha Male!!" "Change Your Life Now - The Alpha
Male Workbook!!", etc)

If you are a man reading this, I want you to ask yourself the next time you find
yourself reluctant to approach a woman who is very attractive, sexy and seemingly
has a lot to offer: Are you "intimidated" by the woman and her attributes? Or are you
intimidated by the prospect of having to compete with other men for this woman's
attention who have as much, if not more to offer, than you do?

If you are a woman reading this ... sorry, but your perception is off base. Very few
men in society are avoiding approaching you because they are "intimidated" by you.
I realize your ego would love for you to believe such a thing, but the truth is what it
is. In some cases, these men are simply not romantically and/or sexually interested
in you.

And in the few cases where the men are interested, but they still are not
approaching? There is an island somewhere waiting for you, your desirable
girlfriends and one lucky man. Give my experiment a try . . .
Dating and being in a relationship are not
the same thing
[Note: The vast majority of this commentary is taken from Chapter 2 of my second
paperback entitled Upfront and Straightforward: Let the Manipulative Game
Players Know What You're REALLY Thinking]

What exactly is dating? Many men and women use the term dating very loosely,
and even to a certain extent, inappropriately. For example, many men and women
believe that if a man and a woman are involved in a monogamous romantic
relationship, this means that they are dating. Actually, this is somewhat of a
misnomer.

Dating is to being in a relationship what shopping for clothes is to actually purchasing

clothes. Based on what I would refer to as traditional or old school philosophies
towards what the term dating means, I will go with this definition: To say that a
person is dating means that this man or woman is in regular communication with a
single, unattached member of the opposite sex, and this person is hanging out
socially with a number of different members of the opposite sex to determine who is
the most compatible candidate to be involved in a steady, exclusively committed
relationship.

For example, if over the last six months, Ive only been in communication with one
woman and Ive spent all of my free time with one woman then I am not really
dating that woman. Even if we never referred to each other as 'boyfriend' or
'girlfriend,' Im still essentially in a relationship with her. When you are truly 'dating,'
this means you are going out with a wide variety of men or women to identify similar
interests, tolerable differences and intolerable differences.

Using the shopping analogy again, it would be like me trying on eight or nine
different business suits before I decide on the one business suit that I am going to
purchase. Again, this was the basic concept of dating from those who are a part of
my late mother and fathers generation. This is why most men and women from my
parents generation frowned on the idea of premarital sex and/or casual sex.
Because once you start having sex with someone, you might as well be in a steady
relationship with them.

You see, no one would frown on a man going out with a new and different woman
every other night over a two or three month period if he were not engaged in sexual
activity with those women. Many who possess the old school mindset would simply
say, Oh, hes just dating. In the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, thats generally what it meant
when you said someone was dating.

There is a popular show on syndicated television entitled elimiDate. You have one
guy, who starts out the night with four women, and by the end of the episode, he
ends up with one woman (or sometimes, its flipped where you will have one woman
at the beginning of the episode with four men). elimiDate is a great example of how
the old school concept of dating worked. A man would start off with say, six
women then he would socialize with those six women until he began to narrow
that number down to five women, then four, then three, then two. . . and then finally,
he decided on the one special woman with whom he wanted to go steady with.
Sound simple and structured enough? Cool.

[Side Note: A few years back, I was involved with a very popular megachurch in
Los Angeles that would encourage dating in the old school manner; the leaders of
the church would encourage the men to go out on a date every week with a different
sister in the church. Then, the brothers in the church would select maybe five to ten
sisters to go out on a second date with; from there, a slightly lesser number of sisters
to go out on a third and fourth date with, until ultimately, the brother in the church
selected the one sister who he wanted to be his steady girlfriend. Given that no
sexual activity was allowed, that concept actually worked, and worked very well.]

I believe the reason why you have so many men and women these days jumping in
and out of a number of shallow, unproductive relationships where no real romantic
chemistry ever existed is because many men and women don't really take the time to
truly date. Many men just want a few days or a few weeks of satisfying sex, and
many women are simply trying to avoid being bored, lonely and unattached.

If you are at home right now asking yourself, "Why do I keep getting into bad
relationship after bad relationship?" the answer is that you have never really allowed
yourself to date. Over the next three months, six months or longer, prevent yourself
from entering into a long-term relationship until you've have had lengthy, detailed
conversations with at least five to ten members of the opposite sex.

Let's say you start off with eight potential male or female companions. Hang out with
all eight at least once. Then, hang out with five or six of those eight a second and
third time. Similarly, hang out with at least three or four of those initial eight four or
five times. Finally, narrow your choices down to your final two. Really get to know
these two the most. This is what true concept of dating is all about.

And just like an employer who has to make the tough choice, there you are. The one
you choose is more-than-likely going to be one you have the most romantic
chemistry with, the most similar life goals and relationship goals, and the least
amount of intolerable differences and red flag issues.

This is my version of "Old School Dating 101 for Dummies." And trust me, I have
had more than my fair share of "dumb dating" moments. Are you going to be a
'smart' dater? Or a 'dumb' dater?
"Relationships of
Convenience" rarely, if ever
progress to the next level
As a man or a woman, have you ever found yourself in a long-term relationship that
is just monogamous enough to avoid being validly categorized as a 'casual sex'
relationship, but at the same time, not quite emotionally intense enough to be
definitely headed in a direction towards marriage? If so, you can totally relate to the
concept of a "relationship of convenience."

Over the years, I have met many men and women who have invested months and
even years in relationships of this nature. I have known some men and women to
remain in a relationship of convenience for as long as fifteen years, with many short-
lived "break ups" (usually ranging anywhere from a few weeks to as long as a year
or two) sprinkled in between the official start and the final split.

Many people, and particularly women (yes, I'm generalizing a wee bit) tend to often
confuse the feeling of "love" with what really underlies the 'glue' that holds a
relationship of convenience together and provides the fuel for such a relationship to
last.

In a nutshell, we typically enter into a relationship of convenience because we are

bored, lonely and/or horny. Not too much more, not too much less. We want a
dependable companion who is geographically close by who can entertain us with
their personalities and their bodies when no other alternative opportunities for
romantic and/or sexual companionship are available or appealing.

Now if you are in a relationship of convenience, and you are consciously aware of
the pros and cons, risks and rewards, then you do not have any dilemma to deal
with. You realize the inherent drama that tends to unfold in such an on-again, off-
again dysfunctional relationship. You will simply continue on your current course of
action until you feel you are ready to evolve beyond your current threshold for
stagnant contentment.

The problems and detriments of a relationship of convenience only have the

potential to affect those who are delusional enough to believe that their relationship
will at some point move to a higher level (i.e., engagement, and ultimately,
marriage). 99% chance, this progression will never happen. If it takes a man or a
woman five years, seven years, ten years or twelve years to determine if you are
indeed "the one" (i.e., their soulmate for life) then something is amiss. More-than-
likely, you are confusing a powerful and addictive sexual chemistry with the
emotionally profound feeling of unconditional love.

If you find yourself in the latter category, ask yourself these questions:
 if exchanging orgasms was not in the picture, would I still enjoy this
person's company? What are the primary "out-of-the-bedroom" qualities
and attributes that genuinely appeal to me about this person?

If I've broken up with this person once or twice before, but later returned
to him or her, what is different about his or her behavior this time that
would prevent us from breaking up again?

If my partner and I have been dating for a minimum of three or four years,
why have I not proposed to this woman yet? (Or, if I am the woman, why
am I willing to wait so long for a proposal?)

Is the idea or concept of marriage truly appealing to me? Can I be

content with just "shacking up" (i.e., living together indefinitely as an
unmarried couple)?

Remember: There are a lot of options for breakfast, lunch and dinner that are
extremely "convenient" for us to choose from given our busy lifestyles, but with
obesity on the rise and a myriad of health problems facing our nation, it's become
very apparent that the 'convenient' choice is not always the healthiest choice in the
long run.

Live a life of well thought out choices and decisions, and few regrets, because time
waits for no one.
"Don't Judge Me" is usually the mantra of
those exhibiting questionable behavior
[Note: Some of this commentary is taken from Chapter 9 of my second paperback
entitled Upfront and Straightforward: Let the Manipulative Game Players Know
What You're REALLY Thinking]

If there is one outcry Im tired of listening to, it is that of Dont judge

me! and/or You are so judgmental!! Please. Give me a break.

If anyone is a spectator of the Summer and Winter Olympics, you realize that many
athletes such as ice skaters and gymnasts are subject to have their talents and
performances judged by a panel of experts. Many of us are judged or evaluated in
many facets of our lives. Its a given.

Now, there are very inappropriate and/or invalid means of judging people. For
example, if you evaluate whether or not a person is a good person or a bad
person simply based on inaccurate or superficial data, that would be representative
of inappropriately judging someone (e.g., because you find out that a man or
woman does not attend church, you express an opinion such as I bet that person
has no moral character. They couldnt have, because they rarely, if ever attend
church!).

Another form of invalid judging is when you specifically compare someone elses
flaws, weaknesses, shortcomings and errors to your own (e.g., because you have
never indulged in the use of illegal drugs, you express an opinion towards those who
have by saying, Anyone who uses drugs is a loser. I have never done such a thing,
would never do such a thing, and anyone who has simply is a low-quality person!)

Now if you are guilty of passing judgment on others based on the above criteria,
99.9% chance, you are in the wrong for expressing such highly subjective and
extremely biased assessments.

Here is when I do feel like evaluating the behavior of others is appropriate, valid and
warranted: When a person has expressed a desire to exhibit behavior that is
designated to adhere to a certain standard" or criteria, but that person's behavior
[repeatedly] fails to meet that standard or criteria.

Example #1:

When you get hired for a new job, you and your employer mutually agree that you
will show up for work ON TIME each and every day you are scheduled to
work. Weeks later, if you are cited for being five minutes late, ten minutes late,
and/or fifteen minutes late repeatedly, you cannot validly defend yourself with a
response of, Hey dont judge me! Everyone is late from time to time!! Uhm
no. That doesnt fly in the professional world.

Example #2:
When you walk down the altar, and repeat marriage vows of love and fidelity, you
are publicly, legally and even spiritually committing yourself to a monogamous
relationship with your spouse for the rest of your life. Now months later, when you
are exposed for committing adultery repeatedly, you cannot validly defend yourself
with a response of, Hey we all get sexually weak in the presence of a sexy man
or woman! Dont you dare judge me!!

No, I am going to judge you. If you do not want to be judged, then do not enter into
mutual agreements with others where your behavior is going to be evaluated by a
certain, objective standard.

If I criticize you for repeatedly telling lies or blatant distortions of the truth, dont
judge me! is simply not a good enough comeback or retort.

If I criticize you for exhibiting behavior that is highly disingenuous, duplicitous,

hypocritical and/or manipulative, the words dont judge me become more of a
weak excuse than a valid defense.

Can I be judgmental at times? Sure. I think any man or woman who does not
possess a fanatical love for chicken wings and Peach Snapple is nutritionally
ignorant. In other words, they are L-O-S-E-R-S!

Now if you will excuse me, I have to adjust my contact lenses. These planks in my
eyes keep interfering with the darn things.
#1 Key to long-term
relationship success?
Communication, of course
Being an author of a book that deals with dating and relationship success, as well as
being a host of a talk radio show that centers on topics and issues that relate to
better relationships with members of the opposite sex, I often get asked, "Alan ...
what is most important to the success of a long-term, monogamous relationship or
marriage?"

There are a lot of psychological, emotional and physical factors that contribute to the
long-term success of a romantic relationship and/or marriage that are equally
significant in their own right. In my experience and observation though, the
component that I think ultimately carries the most weight in determining whether or
not a relationship survives and succeeds in the long-run, or quickly falters after the
novelty of a new relationship begins to fade, is each partner'sinterpersonal
communication skills.

"Well, what about good looks and sex appeal? Surely, these are the factors
that ignite the initial sparks!!"

True. A healthy and attractive physical appearance usually grabs our attention
initially. And just about all men and women tend to find themselves gravitating
towards those who ooze with sex appeal.

What about this scenario though: You are a man, and you meet this person who is
beautiful and sexy. You converse with this person over a period of days, weeks and
months. You say to yourself, "I can't wait to have sex with this woman!!" Hmmmm.
Not so fast.

Did this "woman" communicate to you that she was a transgendered male-to-
female? She failed to?? Uh oh. So much for upfront communication. Here you
were, sending naughty notes and kinky text messages to someone who used to play
semi-pro football and wore a jockstrap. Wow.

"What about career success and financial stability? I believe in the adage, 'no
finance, no romance.' You can't have a successful relationship if you are
broke, right?"

Being in a relationship is almost like engaging in an informal "business partnership."

You have to bring in revenue (i.e., the salaries of each partner), you have to pay
expenses (i.e., the cost of living) and you have to pay taxes. There is no question
that inadequate finances can create a major strain on a relationship if some changes
and improvements in income are not experienced soon.
What about this scenario though: You are a woman, and you meet this wonderful
man who drives a late model European automobile and resides in an expensive
house on the beach. You say to yourself, "This is the guy of my dreams!!" You
spend many nights and weekends getting 'wined and dined,' and the materialistic
gifts just keep on coming. You are in heaven, right? Wrong.

Did you know this man leases that European automobile, and his lease expires in
about a month? This man does not own a car. Did you know the house this man
currently resides in is owned by a wealthy buddy of his who happens to be out of
town, and due to return in a matter of weeks? Did you know this man is over
$250,000 in debt on his credit cards? This man failed to communicate this to you?
Poor woman. This man does not even have a job. He is simply collecting
unemployment benefits.

In order for any relationship to succeed, you have to . . .

Know specifically what you want out of the relationship.

You have to be honest with yourself first. What type of partner do you want? What
attributes are most important to you? What interests and preferences of yours are
you willing to compromise to some degree in order to make the relationship
work? What are you and your partner's "tolerable differences?" What are your "red
flag issues" and/or relationship "deal breakers?"

Communicate to your partner all of your needs, wants, preferences and long-
term goals and objectives

Ask and reveal. Ask and reveal. This is what you need to be doing in the early
stages of a new relationship. Ask your partner questions about their interests,
hobbies, career goals, and what is most important to them in a long-term
relationship. Reveal to your new love interest everything about your particular
interests, quirks and relationship experiences. Ask and reveal.

Communication, communication, communication. Nothing is more important in a

relationship than your ability to communicate what it is you want from your partner,
how you want the relationship to enhance your life, and what you're willing
to sacrifice to make the relationship mutually beneficial to both involved.

Men and women who lie constantly obviously are not good communicators. People
who procrastinate in revealing important information about themselves that can
significantly affect a relationship warrant criticism as well. A good communicator
expresses key information, desires, interests and intentions in an upfront, specific
and straightforwardly honest manner.

Each and every time I meet a woman I'm interested in dating, I ask a series of
questions that are more important than any others. "Do you see marriage in your
future? Do you see yourself having children?" Uhm ... no. Those questions may be
expressed at a later date.
"Have you ever prepared homemade chicken wings for man of interest? Do you
marinate the wings prior to cooking them? Do you love Peach Snapple?" Now this
is an example of communicating my needs and wants in the most effective manner
possible. Upfront and straightforward.
Romantic chemistry: You
can create it, but can you
maintain it?
Most of the questions I receive from my readers have to do with creating those "initial
sparks" with a member of the opposite sex. "What is the first thing I should do or
say?" is a common question from a man or woman who has identified a person of
romantic interest.

Without question, the first conversation and interaction with a man or woman who
you find appealing is very important. If your objective though is to create and
maintain romantic and sexual chemistry over a period of months, years and
decades, a major challenge is in front of you.

It is my believe that if romantic chemistry is to be maintained indefinitely, you and

your partner's attraction to each other must make the transition through at least three
levels of romantic attraction:

Phase #1 of Attraction - Introductory Attraction

If you are reasonably healthy and attractive, and can engage a member of the
opposite sex in fairly interesting and entertaining conversation, you will succeed with
members of the opposite sex in this basic phase of attraction. This phase mainly
centers on physical chemistry and personality. Does this person have a face and/or
body that is appealing to me? Can this person hold my interest for more than a few
minutes in a conversation?

This phase can last two-to-three hours or as long as approximately two-to-three

months. If all you have to offer is good looks and a great sense of humor and wit, this
phase will be your one and only series of interactions with your potential companion
of choice.

Phase #2 of Attraction - Yin and Yang Chemistry Building

You have already determined that you have an above-average degree of physical,
sexual and personality chemistry with a man or woman. What about similarities
and/or differences in your day-to-day habits and long-term interests? For example,
your potential partner eats meat, but you are a vegetarian ... can this relationship
work despite this big difference in eating habits? You work days, and your new
companion works nights ... can you overcome this challenge in gaining "quality time"
with one another? He is a Democrat, you are a Republican ... can another version of
a James Carville and Mary Matalin marriage work?
Once the excitement and novelty of the Introductory Phase begins to diminish, this
phase is where you establish all of your similar interests and tolerable differences. If
there are any "red flags" or major "deal breakers" present between you two, they will
reveal themselves during this phase. If you have successfully progressed from
Phase #1 to Phase #2, your relationship is usually bound to last anywhere from a
minimum of three-to-six months to as long as three or four years, if not slightly
longer.

Phase #3 of Attraction - Cementing the Bond

If you have already read Dr. Stephen R. Covey's The Seven Habits of Highly
Effective People, then you are fully aware that Covey evaluates men and women's
behavior primarily on their core values, their ethics and their fundamental
principles. These are the attributes that 'set the glue," so to speak, in
yourrelationships with others.

You and a member of the opposite gender can have an intense physical and sexual
attraction to one another (such as Mickey Rourke and Kim Basinger in the
movie, 9 1/2 Weeks) ... and you can have many similar interests and tolerable
differences (such as Ben Affleck and Joey Lauren Adams in the film, Chasing
Amy) ... but if you and your partner are not in sync when it comes to your core
values, principles and ethics, then in the long-run, your relationship is more-than-
likely doomed.

There is a concept in religious and spiritual circles that is known as being "unequally
yoked." No relationship can endure hardships and episodes of adversity if your
approach to responding to challenges in the relationship is diametrically opposed to
the manner in which your partner responds to unexpected events and undesirable
circumstances.

For example, if one partner unexpectedly loses their job ... is their response to send
out cover letters and resumes to potential employers, or go out and rob a bank? If
one partner finds out that the other partner has engaged in a weekend fling with a
sexual partner outside the relationship, does the partner who has been betrayed talk
this situation out, or do they go for their knife or gun and handle things in a much
more harsh and violent manner?

The Bonding Phase is the most crucial phase. There is a saying that everyone
comes into your life for "a reason, a season or a lifetime." When it comes to romantic
relationships, Phase #1 is the reason, Phase #2 is the season and Phase #3 opens
the door for life-long companionship.

Once again, creating romantic and sexual chemistry with a potential partner is
always great ... but it takes a lot of qualities, characteristics and attributes to ensure
that this chemistry stands the test of time through the emotional roller coaster known
as a long-term relationship or marriage.
Female listeners get riled up
about discussion on
promiscuity
At the risk of "tooting my own horn," the vast majority of comments and responses I
receive from either those who have read my books (Mode One and Upfront and
Straightforward) or from those who have listened to my talk radio show (Upfront &
Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie) are usually very supportive, flattering and
positive.

I rarely receive critical or angry letters from listeners and readers (well, with the
exception of my interview with Robert Greene, author of The 48 Laws of
Power, The Art of Seduction and The 50th Law; Some of his fans wrote me some
harsh criticisms for challenging Greene about some of his "laws of power")

Well, my most recent radio show discussion about "sexual soul ties" and
premarital promiscuity got at least a half a dozen female listeners riled up!! Most of
my regular listeners usually write me on Facebook, but these women chose to write
me at my normal Email address (BlogTalkRadio@modeone.net). In addition to
responding to them individually, I decided to include many of their comments and
criticisms in this article to "air out" how men and women view the concept of a
partner's "promiscuous past" differently (The best film I've seen on a man reacting to
a woman's promiscuous past is Kevin Smith's film, Chasing Amystarring Ben
Affleck; A must-see film for men)

[Note: real names have become fictional names for the sake of anonymity]

From Danielle W.:

"Alan, I disagree with your comment that women don't care about a man's
promiscuous past. I surely do. I have never wanted to [seriously] date a 'man-
whore.' I use these types for casual sex just like men use female whores for
casual pleasure. We [women] are not that much different than you men!!"

Alan's response: I'm only reminded of our gender differences every time I go to the
bathroom. Other than that . . .

From Michelle H.:

"This society has such a double standard. Men can be the biggest sluts in the
world, and all of their friends pat them on the back. If women have sex with
more than a handful of men prior to marriage, all of the sudden we are 'sluts,'
'freaks' and 'whores' who are looked down on and perceived as not being quite
'marriage material' anymore. This is garbage."
Alan's response: This is what happens when you live in a Judeo-Christian society.
Women are expected to exhibit behavior that is chaste, wholesome and sexually
conservative. Promiscuity is sort of a positive and a negative for many women. The
positive? Men assume you are really, really good in bed if you have had a lot of
partners. The negative? Most men feel like you will never, ever be truly loyal to them
in a long-term, monogamous relationship. Loyalty and trust are big in any
relationship, and particularly in the minds of most men.

But women do have an option! If you want to engage in regular sex prior to marriage
without having judgmental, subjective labels attached to your name, just find a guy
you are really attracted to and that you know will satisfy you in bed, and call him ...
get this ladies ... your "boyfriend." That is the magic word!! Boyfriend. A woman
with ten 'boyfriends' before marriage = not perceived as a 'ho.' A woman with ten
casual sex partners before marriage = you will more-than-likely be perceived as a
ho. It's not fair, but that is life!

From Janet G.:

"I don't believe in all of that religious mumbo jumbo. 'Sexual soul ties?' Are
you kidding me? A man has sex with me, and now his 'spirit' is inside my
soul?? Please Alan ... stick to more sane topics in the future. I love your radio
show, but that topic made me shake my head."

Alan's response: A more 'sane' topic is coming up this Thursday! "Men and women
who have been married to or dated romantic partners who proved to be
mentally and/or emotionally unstable (i.e., suffered from psychological
personality disorders) Janet, this topic will make you examine your head ... not
shake it.

From Christina B.:

"Alan, let's be real. All men and women who are over the age of thirty-five (35)
have a 'sexual past.' If a man can't handle the fact that an older woman has
been 'experimental' and 'adventurous' in her younger years, he should remove
himself from the dating scene or try to convert a nun into a girlfriend or wife."

Alan's response: Don't be silly Christina. You can't turn a Ho Nun into a Housewife.

From Actress Stacey Dash:

"Alan, I heard you mentioned me on your radio show. So what if I told Jamie
Foxx and his radio crew that I slept with all three of my former husbands on
the first date! Are you implying that I am an 'easy lay'?!? Well, I'm not! I just
want to 'sample the goods' before I make a commitment!! Don't hate!!"
Alan's response: Stacey, I would never 'imply' that any woman is an 'easy lay.' I let a
woman's actions speak for them instead. (Okay, okay ... Stacey Dash
didn'tREALLY write me ... but I did mention her on my episode about premarital
promiscuity).

Keep these fiery letters coming ladies!! I love reading them!! Now, I'm about to go
"Nun Hunting" (hint, hint, wink, wink)
Cheaters always want a
companion with better
character than themselves
On a recent episode of my talk radio show, Upfront & Straightforward with Alan
Roger Currie, I discussed the idea of "polyamorous dating," which includes
swinging, couple-swapping, open relationships, open marriages, and any other
variation of an "alternative styled relationship" that leaves the door of opportunity
open for a couple to enjoy the lustful pursuit and erotic satisfaction of multiple sex
partners while at the same time maintaining some semblance of a conventional one-
on-one romantic relationship.

I found it interesting that many men and women who I informally surveyed about a
choice between an open marriage or cheating said they would prefer that their
companion or spouse cheated on them behind their back. Really now. Very few men
and women said they could find it in themselves to be openly tolerant of their
companion or spouse having sex with a member of the opposite sex with their full
knowledge and approval.

These responses did not totally surprise me. Most men I know who have been
cheaters and adulterers and/or still are would never want to be in a long-term
relationship with a woman who they know is exchanging orgasms regularly or semi-
regularly with other men. No way. That would defeat the purpose of cheating in the
first place. Same goes for members of the female gender.

I wrote an article on here back in early November 2009 entitled You can't have your
Peach Cobbler in your stomach AND in the kitchen. In that article, I basically said
that for those who are guided primarily by their egos, their lust and their manipulative
tendencies, a companion who is the mirror image of themselves is not a turn-on or a
challenge.

A man who has the propensity to cheat always wants to be in a relationship with a
woman who he feels is virtuous and possesses exceptional moral character and
integrity. The type of woman who would never allow herself to be easily seduced by
a man with handsome looks, a charming personality, or the generous offer of
financial favors. Similarly, the vast majority of women who are flirtatious, but strategic
and discreet in their philandering ways also want a male companion who they
perceive as the living personification of wholesome ideals, incredible sexual self-
control and good old fashioned family values.

Here is a parable for you . . .

John was a successful corporate executive who was married to Jane. In public, John
presented himself as "Mr. Monogamous." The prototypical happily married husband.
John took his beautiful wife Jane to a number of civic events and social activities.
Many men and women in town envied John and Jane's relationship. On the surface,
there appeared to be no flaws in their relationship. They seemed to be the epitome
of marital bliss.

Privately though, John had a different side. John had an eye for the ladies, and many
of the ladies in town had a reciprocal eye for John. John would always be cautious
and calculating when it came to arranging his dalliances with his "other women."
John preferred to have affairs with married women because he felt like they had just
as much to lose as he did if the affair was ever exposed.

"This is our little secret ... right?" was John's infamous post-orgasmic dictum. Woman
after woman, affair after affair, John would always leave a local hotel room or other
secluded venue with a smile on his face.

One day, John arrived home after work, and found Jane sitting on the couch
crying. "Honey ... what is wrong?!?" John asked. Jane, tissues in hand, slowly looked
up at John. "I was in the grocery store today, and I ran into Amy, Cindy Lou, Michelle
and Amy. They all had the same things to say about you. I just couldnt believe it.
Ever since, Ive been here crying. For the first few moments, John remained calm.
His first reply was, I have no idea what you are talking about. Jane began to cry
more profusely.

Finally, Johns sense of guilt overwhelmed him. Okay okay Ill tell
you everything. John sat on the couch next to Jane, sharing all of the details of
each and every one of his illicit affairs with women in town, including the four women
his wife encountered in the grocery store. Jane just stared at him. Speechless. After
he had shared every important piece of information about all of his adulterous
activities, he looked at his wife and said, Please Jane can you ever find it in your
heart to forgive me?

Jane paused for a long while, and then she finally said, Ill think about it John. Give
me some time. John gathered a few of his things, and was about to leave the house
for a few hours. Just before he did though, he approached Jane and said, I trusted
these women. They gave me their word that they would never betray my trust. Which
one of the four confessed their affair with me first?

Jane slowly stood up from the couch. She approached her husband, looked him
dead in his eyes, and said, None of them. Each of these women told me how
envious they were of me to be married to such a great guy like you they
expressed how wonderful of a husband you were to me and how they wish it was
them, instead of me, that was your wife. These women told me I was so lucky to
have you as my life-long companion. And all of these flattering comments just
overwhelmed to the point where I came home and started crying.

John was left looking stunned. Absolutely dazed and stupefied. John gathered a few
of his things and left.

Minutes later, Jane picked up the phone and dialed a number. She waited for the
recipient of the phone call to answer. Finally, the person on the other end of the line
answered. Hey ... Janet? This is your baby sister again. (pause) Change of plans.
John and I talked, and now I dont feel guilty anymore. (long pause) No, you dont
understand. I have no motivation to confess anything to him now. Turns out, he has
had sex with the wife of every man who I had sex with. So, as far as Im concerned,
were even.

For a few minutes, Jane just listened to her older sister Janet offer her a few words
of wisdom.

Finally, she ended the phone call by saying, As always Janet this is our little
secret right? Jane giggled, hung up the phone, and calmly smirked to
herself. Jane then went forth with the remainder of her day without any sense of
emotion or distraction.

Never underestimate the power of Karma.

Sometimes, authenticity in
relationships requires
Divine Assistance
If you hired a nanny or a babysitter to watch your children, wouldn't you want to know
everything about that person's past? I would surely hope so. Would anyone want a
young woman (or man) watching their most treasured possessions who could be
psychotic? At minimum, have a history of exhibiting questionable character and
integrity? Surely we all know at least one "babysitter-gone-bad" horror story.

Admittedly, I am not the most "religious" person in the world. I have definitely had my
years where I went weeks and weeks without ever having my buttocks firmly planted
in a church pew. For my friends and acquaintances who might be an atheist and/or
agnostic, please indulge me for a second. What if there IS a GOD?? What do you
think HIS role is in regard to dating and relationships?

Let's say that everything about you ... your desires, fears, strengths, weaknesses,
interests, character, integrity, ambitions, insecurities, past experiences and overall
attributes ... were represented by four letters (similar to the Myers-Briggs
Personality Tests used by colleges and corporations). You might be an "ABCD,"
your brother might be a "LMNO" and your sister might be a "WXYZ." Let's say that it
has also been determined by psychological studies and surveys that in order for a
romantic relationship to last, you must connect with someone who shares at least
TWO of the same letters as you, or three letters for an ideal match, and even all four
letters to ensure the perfect match.

Now, if I am at a party ... and I am an "ARPB" (I don't know ... "Author/Radio

Personality/Bachelor"?), then I am on the hunt for a woman who has either an "AR",
"RP", "PB," "AP," "RB", "AB" or some other two letter, three letter or four letter match
in their alphabetic attribute makeup. What if by chance, I see a woman who is drop-
dead gorgeous, but she is a "SEXY??" So, I pretend to be a "SEXY" too? Won't that
work?? Just pretend to be all that she is about??

In the short-run, of course I could employ a believable facade. This woman is being
totally authentic, but sadly, I am not. At some point in time, my true "A," "R," "P,"
and/or "B" is going to start revealing itself. Then I will be exposed. And more-than-
likely, this woman will end up frustrated and bitter because she wasted her time on
someone who didn't even have ONE LETTER worth of real attributes and interests in
common with her. Shame on me.

Think about this even WORSE scenario. What if this woman was not a "SEXY" at
all? What if she was being just as disingenuous towards me as I was being towards
her?? What if she really was an "ARXY," but she was PRETENDING to be a
"SEXY??" Now, we both wasted each other's time. We could have possibly had a
great relationship (The "AR" connection), but I wasn't being my true self and neither
was she. So we both lost out.

This is where I believe GOD comes into play. I do not really believe GOD says, "I
am going to put Alan with [insert name of desired female companion]." That would be
going against my free will. And we all know (if we are spiritual), GOD is all about
FREE WILL. The ability to make your OWN CHOICES. Good and bad. I do believe
though, if you decide to express a firm trust in GOD (i.e., your personal faith), he will
in due time reveal to you people's TRUE "LETTERS." So if you meet an "ABCD" who
is pretending to be a "WXYZ," he will allow this person's true colors letters to be
revealed to you (and vice versa).

Just think for a moment if none of us were involved in relationships "pretending." We

just decided to be who we really were. Wouldn't that be revolutionary? All of the
ABCDs would hook up with the ABCDs. All of the LMNOs would hook up with the
LMNOs. No romantic mismatches whatsoever. What a wonderful life this would be
for all of us. A few problems and spats here and there, but overall, true romantic
bliss.

Even for the FAKEs.

Beware of the man or
woman who hates being
single
In the world of dating and relationships, we typically hear about men (and even a few
women) who are allegedly "commitment-phobic." These are the people who go out
of their way to avoid any sort of long-term and/or monogamous relationship with any
member of the opposite sex. What about those on the opposite end of the spectrum?
Those who hate being lonely, single and emotionally unattached for any significant
period of time? These men and women come with their own set of unique red flags.

One fictional movie character who fits this bill is Tom Cruise's entertaining portrayal
as rebellious sports agentJerry Maguire. In the film by the same name, Jerry is
known among his closest friends for not being able to function for too long as a
single man. Jerry loves being in a relationship, or at minimum, maintaining female
companionship indefinitely.

Now on the surface, one might say, "What is wrong with that? Who wants to be
single for months and/or years? Loneliness can take its toll on you!" The problem
with men and women who are "loneliness-phobes" or "single-phobes" is these are
the types who are the most likely to exploit you and/or simply use you as an
'entertaining distraction and diversion,' and then within a matter of weeks or months,
simply dump you and either a) move on to the next person who appears to be able to
provide very entertaining companionship or b) return to the companion who they
really have emotionally profound feelings for, leaving you to feel like "Mr. or Ms.
Rebound Material."

In my lifetime, I have met, dated or interacted with at least two dozen or more
women who rarely remained single for more than roughly a month or two. I mean,
these women literally jumped from relationship to relationship to relationship (or in a
few cases, from one marriage to another marriage to another marriage) without
giving themselves any time to truly heal any emotional wounds from the previous
relationship.

I cannot speak for others, but I have never been able to do that. Casually? Yes. I can
easily jump from one short-term, non-monogamous relationship to another (Most
men can do that and even many women). On the other hand, when I am in a
situation where I just made a recent exit out of relationship that was much more
heartfelt and emotionally profound? No way. Can't do it.

There are some who say that for every year that you were in a very serious, long-
term monogamous relationship, you should remain single for at least three
months (e.g., if you just got out of a four year relationship, you should remain single
for at least a year before beginning to look for another 'serious' companion).I am not
sure if this is a valid philosophy or not, but I will say this: "rebound" relationships can
work occasionally, but more often than not, they leave the person who was not "on
the rebound" feeling used and emotionally devastated.

Although I prefer to have steady female companionship, I am definitely one who can
tolerate ... and even enjoy ... the single life indefinitely without complaint. Now if you'll
excuse me, I'm about to jam some Cameo. What song?

Single Life, of course.

In defense of lying
womanizers, gold diggers,
attention seekers and other
manipulators
[Note: Most of the content in this article is an excerpt from my most recent eBook
release entitled, SEMANTICS and SCENARIOS: Inside the Mind of the
Manipulative Game Player]

Many women are very quick to label a number of men "lying womanizers," "dogs,"
"cheaters," "jerks," and "a**holes." Similarly, many men will not hesitate to
categorize a number of women as "attention whores," "gold diggers," "sex teasers,"
and of course, "bitches." All of this bashing comes from hurt feelings, bruised egos,
pent-up frustrations towards the opposite gender, and just plain old bitterness and
resentment caused from being repeatedly lied to, misled and manipulated.

While some of these subjective labels might have some degree of validity at times, I
say it is high time to look at the real culprit: You ... and members of your own
gender. That's right. I didn't stutter. I blame you for enabling the deceitful,
manipulative behavior of others. "How dare you blame the victim!!" you say. I would
much rather say, "I am blaming the enabler."

Case in point: Men refer to women who seek out men with wealth and highly
appealing material possessions as "gold diggers," but the reality is, if men would
stop trying to impress women with undeserved material gifts, unwarranted financial
favors, as well as showing off their new house on the beach or new expensive
European car, there would be no such thing as a "gold digger." Don't blame that
woman for going after what you are selling.

By the same token, women will brand many men as "dogs" and "cheaters," but the
reality is, if all women were only having sex with men who were their husband, live-in
companion, fiance' or long-time lover, how could men be guilty of skirt chasing
and womanizing? Men can only engage in casual, promiscuous sex with women if
there are women allowing themselves to be seduced by men who they have no
sense of commitment with.

When you point that finger at the opposite gender in an attempt to direct blame their
way, there are three fingers pointing right back at 'ya.
There are a number of reasons why there is so much animosity and distrust between
the genders in the 21st Century, but if I had to highlight one of the most prominent
reasons, it would be because men lie to women, mislead them and manipulate
them ... and likewise ... women lie to men, mislead them and manipulate
them. Consequently, members of both genders are left feeling deceived, used, bitter
and resentful. All of these manipulative "head games" being employed against each
other by men and women is creating a very hostile chasm between the sexes.

What do I define as a manipulative game player?

Here is an example of a non-manipulative interaction:

Boy meets Girl. Boy expresses his romantic and/or sexual desires, interests and
intentions to Girl in the most highly self-assured, upfront and straightforwardly honest
manner. Girl either a) reciprocates his desires and interests, or b) Girl lets Boy know
that her interests are different. The two either hook up, or they go their separate
ways. No harm, no foul.

Now, let's add an undertone of manipulation into the mix:

Boy meets Girl. Boy wants to express a desire for a one-night stand, a weekend
fling, or 2-3 weeks of casual sex; Boy is scared though, because he is afraid that
Girl will have an adverse reaction to a proposition for short-term, non-monogamous
sex. Boy believes Girl will curse him out and accuse him of perceiving her as an
'easy lay.'

Girl is not stupid. Girl knows that Boy wants to get in her pants as quickly and
effortlessly as possible. But instead of simply telling Boy that she is not interested in
casual sex, she decides to 'play' him. She invites Boy to engage in trivial, but
entertaining conversation with her repeatedly; She allows Boy to flatter her ego
endlessly; She hints to Boy that she wants to be 'wined and dined' at some of the
most expensive restaurants around; and she lets Boy know that she only has sex
with men who "treat her like a Queen."

End result? Boy invests a lot of time and money trying to impress Girl so he can get
laid; Girl leads Boy on to believe he is going to have sex with her, but in reality,
Girl actually has absolutely no plans on being intimate with Boy; Boy, out of
frustration, makes an aggressive attempt to have sex with Girl that borders on date
rape; Girl slaps the sh** out of Boy, and threatens to call the police. Both Boy and
Girl end up hating each other.

Sound familiar? I have observed variations of this scenario play out many times.

The manipulative "gamesmanship" serves no one gender well in the long-run. All it
does is make men distrust women and call females all sorts of names, and it makes
women do the same thing with even more frequency.

Next time you are on the verge of hurling harsh, subjective criticisms towards the
opposite sex, I want you to ask yourself this question:
What sort of behavior am I exhibiting that is inviting and/or motivating
deceitful or manipulative behavior from members of the opposite sex? Am I
as upfront and straightforward with all of my true desires, interests and
intentions as I can be?

You might be suprised at the answers.

Breaking up too quickly can
many times lead to long-
term regret
If there is one scenario that is just as bad as entering into a committed relationship
too quickly, it is rushing to the relationship 'exit door' prematurely. Just like there are
'right' and 'wrong' reasons for being in a relationship, there are 'right' and 'wrong'
reasons for breaking up.

What is the #1 sign that you may have broken up with someone too quickly and/or
for the wrong reasons? Anytime you find yourself severely missing your former
companion physically, emotionally and sexually within days or weeks after a recent
break up, and for the most part, you're ready to reunite with them at any moment,
this usually means you pressed the 'break-up button' way too quickly.

What are the most valid reasons for breaking up? What are some of the wrong
reasons for breaking up? I'll offer my take on each.

Here are some of the RIGHT reasons to end a relationship:

1) Irreconcilable and/or Intolerable differences

Comment: This is when you have arrived at a point in the relationship when you and
your spouse or companion have mutually concluded that you two are just flat-out
incompatible.

I have always maintained that each of a person's qualities, behavioral quirks,

personality characteristics and individual attributes are going to generally fall into
three categories: a) those qualities that you like or love about your companion; b)
those qualities that you don't particularly care for, but can easily tolerate; and c)
those qualities that you just absolutely, positively cannot tolerate over the course of a
long-term relationship.

When most of your companion's qualities and attributes fall into category "C," this
means you two are simply incompatible. Anytime your moments of frustration,
antagonism and misery in the relationship far exceed your moments of harmony,
happiness and romantic bliss, it's time to end the relationship. For good.

2) The level of mutual trust and/or respect in the relationship has reached the
point of no return

Comment: If there are two components that you must have in a relationship to make
it work and allow the love to flourish, it is trust and mutual respect. Once these two
factors are gone for good, the feelings of love for each other will soon permanently
diminish as well.

Are you or your companion perpetually paranoid and distrustful that the other is
cheating? Do you talk to your companion in a condescending manner as if they are
your son or daughter instead of your romantic companion? Have you and/or your
companion violated boundaries that were initially indicated as "lines you should not
cross?" When your relationship has reached this point, you are well within your rights
to call it quits.

3) You and your companion do not share the same general morals, values and
principles.

Comment: I discussed this in one of my other articles about romantic chemistry

(Click Here). In order for a relationship to last for year after year after year, you and
your companion must have similar values, principles and moral character. This is a
must.

For example, If money is the most important factor in a relationship for you, then
ideally, you need to be with someone who generally places the same degree of
importance on financial stablity and security as you do. If sex is very important to
you, then you need to be partnered with someone who generally places the same
degree of emphasis on erotic satisfaction as you do.

If you are frugal, but you are currently in a relationship with a spend-thrift, there is a
greater than fifty-percent chance that your relationship is not going to work in the
long run. If you place a high value on health and fitness, but you are dating someone
who is a lazy couch potato, then nine times out of ten, your relationship is going to
fizzle out at some point in the future. If you believe that "honesty is the best policy,"
but your spouse or companion believes "the only thing worse than lying is dying,"
then your relationship is doomed.

Okay Alan ... enough of the right reasons! What are some of
the WRONG reasons for breaking up?

1) Your companion hurt your feelings and/or bruised your ego

Comment: I have seen many men and women break up with a companion simply
because their romantic partner did something or said something to "hurt their
feelings," or that left a dent in their ego. This is a very invalid reason for breaking up
with someone.

I can't name how many times I have witnessed a couple break up, only to get back
together days later, weeks later, or months later, because both realized they just
needed time to get over hurt feelings or a perceived insult to their ego.

The next time your feelings are hurt ... just spend some time discussing what
comments and/or what actions caused this, and offer heartfelt apologies if needed.
No need to push the "break up" button over petty disagreements and arguments.
2) Your companion won't act the way you want them to

Comment: I say this in my second book, Upfront and Straightforward: You cannot
enter into any romantic relationship with the expectation of your companion always
allowing you to have your way and exhibit the exact behavior that you want them
to. This is usually the result of a 'spoiled ego' on your part as well as unrealistic
expectations of what a true relationship really is.

The biggest mistake you can ever make going into a relationship is trying to get your
companion to make drastic changes in their behavior for the sole and specific
purpose of pleasing you. Once a man or woman is in their early-to-mid 30s or older,
90% chance they are going to be set in their ways. You have to either accept them
"as is," or decide to pursue another companion who has more similar interests and
tolerable differences.

3) Your companion gained some weight, got laid off from their job, or
experienced some other "temporary setback"

Comment: One of the worst things a man or woman can do is "kick a person while
they are down." With the exception of extenuating circumstances, you should never
break up with your companion when they are facing some sort of unexpected
episode of adversity or in the midst of one of their lowest points in their life.

I've known women to break up with a man within days after he lost his high five-
figure or six-figure job. That's cold. Why not help him send out resumes in an attempt
to get a new job? I've known men to break up with women simply because they
gained 30, 40 or 50 pounds of added weight. That's even more heartless. Why not
buy your girlfriend or wife a treadmill, a stationary bicycle or a membership at the
local health club and work out with her?

Nine times out of ten, if you break up with a companion for temporary, superficial
reasons like these, the minute your former companion rebounds back to normal, you
will be ready to grovel your way back into their life. You might meet another man or
woman who seems better looking, sexier, and has more to offer, but more than
likely, once these new entertaining distractions reveal their wide array of flaws and
shortcomings, you will find yourself reminiscing about the good ol' days with the
partner you abandoned.

The decision to break up with someone you feel you are in love with is always
challenging. Just make sure that when you make the decision to end a relationship, it
won't be a decision you will find yourself regretting in both the short-run and the long-
run.
Hollywood may have
changed over the years, but
the allure of overnight
success is still the same
Recently, I was watching the 1950 feature-film classic, Sunset Boulevard. I'm in the
midst of writing a screenplay with a similar theme, and wanted to re-watch it to
refresh my memory. If you have never viewed this movie, it is about a down-on-his-
luck screenwriter (the late William Holden) who crosses paths with a former
celebrated movie actress and silent film starlet named 'Norma Desmond' (played
wonderfully by the late Gloria Swanson).

Desmond has a certain degree of wealth, but that is about all you would envy about
her. Desmond's mind has led her to a perpetual state of delusion, where she still
perceives herself as one of Hollywood's greatest treasures who should still demand
adulation and career opportunities in film. In a nutshell, she is an aging has-been
whose ego has still allowed her to believe that she is still relevant.

How many times have you said, "I wish I had her fame!" "I wish I had his power!" "I
wish I had their wealth!" Let me ask you this. Would you trade places with Tiger
Woods right now? Sandra Bullock? Lindsay Lohan? Tony Hayward? Kwame
Kilpatrick?

To clarify, there is nothing wrong with being ambitious and pursuing your life-long
dreams. If your true passions happen to bring you opportunities for a better quality of
life, more power to you.

I'm speaking to those willing to "sell their soul to the devil" for career success (for
those non-religious types, this phrase is representative of exhibiting behavior that is
dishonest, unethical, highly manipulative, misleading and/or morally wrong and
spiritually evil in exchange for reaping the usually momentary and superficial benefits
that wealth, fame and power can provide).

Now to those loyal readers of my articles, you might be saying, "This seems like
general commentary ... how does this specifically relate to dating andrelationships?
Your articles are supposed to provide advice and wisdom as it relates to dating!" I'm
going to make the connection in a moment. Trust me.

If you are a beautiful, sexy aspiring actress, singer or model ... but you have no real
Industry connections, there are going to be rich, powerful men in abundance waiting
to "help you climb the ladder" and offer you a helping hand. And I'm talking about a
"hand" which is right there glued to your butt while you are stepping up each rung
adorned in a tight mini-skirt with a cute, sexy thong.

It is no secret that some women in Hollywood in search of wealth and fame many
times exchange sexual favors with men (and other women) for a chance at the big
time. You would be naive to think this doesn't happen on a weekly, if not daily basis.
The more important question for the women in this category would be, what happens
when you are 55 instead of 25? When your mouth is full of dentures instead of
bright, white teeth? When your breasts are sagging instead of firm and perky? What
happens when your marginal talent, if you have any true talent at all, is exposed?

You will be discarded like yesterday's newspaper. A former sexual play thing no
longer wanted or useful to any man with any reasonable degree of Industry
influence. Even outside the context of the Entertainment Industry, I observe many
women between the ages of approximately 18 and 29 using their beauty, feminine
charms and sex appeal to manipulate horny men in exchange for a career-boosting
favor and/or a subsidized lifestyle.

Don't think for a second this modus operandi won't catch up with you. There is a
"nice guy revolution" going on in society right now. The traditional "Beta Male" types
are no longer allowing themselves to be placed on hold until women who are 35
years of age or older are ready to pull them down from the shelf, and finally activate
them as a desirable candidate for loyal hen-pecked husbandry and a means of
financial security after spending their early years being 'used and abused' by more
cocky, self-centered, seemingly powerful and sexy "Alpha Male" types. Not any
longer. The wool has been pulled off of the eyes of these men now.

Visit any popular online matchmaking site, and you will literally see hundreds, if not
thousands, of women between the ages of roughly 35 and 49 desperately looking for
a "nice guy who will treat them right." Former beauty queens and sex symbol types,
many with a questionable, highly promiscuous past, posting hardline comments such
as, Im no longer looking to play games. I want a man who is real and sincere. Oh
really now. So NOW youre ready to give up themanipulative head games, huh? So
now that your measurements are 46-38-49 instead of 37-23-36, you are ready for a
genuine interaction with a man built on reciprocal trust, mutual respect and
"true love?" Puhleaze. Do not insult the intelligence of socially savvy men.

My prediction is that the next generation will be full of their fair share of 'Norma
Desmond' types. "You know, I was once a cover girl on Vogue magazine...." "I was in
fifteen rap videos back in the day...." "I had a few speaking parts in some B-
movies ... you can see them on YouTube!" And these same women will be lonely,
bitter, delusional, and holding on to the memory of momentary fame, glory and
money in the bank long gone.

If you are even halfway objective-minded, then please pay attention to the wisdom
provided in cautionary tales such as Sunset Boulevard. You might be misled into
believing that having your own television sitcom or magazine lingerie spread is the
ultimate in happiness and egotistical satisfaction, but the short term benefits of a
manipulative lifestyle supported by superficial values will soon reveal an expiration
date that you might not be emotionally prepared to deal with just yet.
For those women already up in age, don't worry. Maybe there is some 65-year old
rapper ("GrandDaddy Pimp4Life?") being groomed by some label. Maybe elderly
video vixens a.k.a. "Nursin' Home Honeys" will become the rage. I'm not so sure
though that Depend undergarments makes a thong for the Senior crowd that will
allow you to show off your butt like you used to. Cellulite creams anyone?
The problems between men
and women are not that
complex
If you are an active user of the popular social networking site, Facebook, you might
have noticed a change in men and women's status updates. I first joined Facebook
in July of 2006 (that's right ... I've been on Facebook now for just under four years!),
and initially, the vast majority of status updates said things like, "Just got my hair
done!" "I can't believe the Redskins lost to the Cowboys ... again!" "My baby is finally
walking!!" and so on and so on. Nice, cute, lighthearted fare.

My, how things have changed. Now it seems, half of the men and women on
Facebook are pseudo-psychologists, all offering either their own unique principles
and personal philosophies for how to gain wealth, career success and individual
happiness, or regurgitating the most well-known uplifting comments and truisms of
other more popular and credible self-improvement gurus. What is even more
interesting is many of the discussion threads that center on the growing animosity
and chasm between members of the two genders (particularly in the African-
American community).

The vast majority of women blame men for the current state of affairs between men
and women. Men defend themselves by pointing out the numerous flaws and
shortcomings they perceive in the 21st Century woman's behavior. Some criticisms
and complaints hurled at members of the opposite gender are valid to one degree or
another, while others just make for entertaining and controversial conjecture.

Since I am the author of four books (two paperbacks and two additional eBooks)
that relate to interpersonal communication habits between men and women, I will
now offer my own assessment of "what is wrong" between men and women today:

1) Both men and women are guilty of expressing too many invalid
generalizations and stereotypes.

Comment: Anytime you start your criticism of the opposite sex by saying, "All
men ..." or "All women ...," 99% chance, you are about to declare some perceived
flaw that is inaccurate. It can be said that all men have a penis and that all women
have a vagina. Beyond that, there is not too much factual or valid that you can say
about "all" members of the opposite sex. To say, "Many men ..." is okay. "The vast
majority of women ..." is close to saying "all," but you're still free from invalid
generalizations. "A good number of men and women ..." is acceptable. As much as
you can, stay away from comments like "All men do this ..." and "All women do
that ..."
2) Most of the problems (and pleasure!) between men and women begin and
end with sex

Comment: Identify just about any argument or debate related

to dating and relationships, and inevitably, it has something to do with sex (before,
during or after). How many arguments and heated debates do you see on Facebook
or other social networking sites and discussion forums / message boards related to
how men and women cannot get along with each other in a business, professional
environment and/or within the context of a platonic friendship? A handful maybe, but
not too many.

Inevitably, the vast majority of the criticisms, complaints, disappointments and

bitterness expressed by members of each gender are usually the result of a sexual
relationship gone bad, or in some cases, the frustration of not being able to gain the
opportunity to have sex with someone that you really, really wanted to.

Primary Scenario: Boy meets girl. Boy wants to have sex with girl. Girl wants to
have sex with boy too. They end up having sex (either short-term or long-term,
monogamously or non-monogamously), and the sex is good. They both smile after
each orgasm.

Where is the problem? Where is the basis for an argument? I cannot identify a
problem until I add a few new "wrinkles" into this basic scenario.

Modified Scenario #1: Boy meets girl. Boy wants to have sex with girl, but only for
two weeks or less. Boy lies to girl and tells her that he wants to have sex with her
indefinitely. When girl gets dumped for Boy's new short-term sex partner, girl feels
angry and bitter. Boy gains the new nickname of "jerk," "a**hole," and "dog."

Problem identified? Boy is a liar. Boy doesn't have the cojones to come clean on
his desire for short-term, non-monogamous sexual companionship. It is not good to
mislead women like this. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned is a phrase that
should be memorized by all single heterosexual men (yes, I said "all').

Modified Scenario #2: Boy meets girl. Boy wants to have long-term monogamous
sex with girl, but wants to know about her sexual history with other men. Girl lies
about her past number of sex partners and gives Boy the impression that she has
been a "good girl" (i.e., has avoided promiscuous behavior). Boy eventually finds out
that girl has done her share of "sleeping around" and loses interest. Boy calls girl a
"ho" and girl calls boy "judgmental."

Problem identified? Girl is disingenuous and sexually duplicitous. She wants the
public image and reputation of a woman who is perceived as innocent, wholesome,
and sexually conservative and/or prudish, but she wants to experience the lustful
and erotic pleasures that comes from enjoying the companionship of multiple sex
partners.

If any boy desires to date a girl long-term, he has the right to know the decision-
making character of the girl he desires to date, and possibly marry. In the long-run,
coming clean is always better than hiding the truth. This applies to both genders.
Modified Scenario #3: Boy meets girl. Boy wants to have sex with girl, but secretly
loves to also have sex with other boys in addition to girls. Girl can't handle this.

Problem identified? Boy is on the down-low (i.e., bisexual). Once again, reference
my Hell hath no fury quote. Spreading STDs, and HIV/AIDS in particular, is no
joke. You gotta come clean about your sexuality and sexual past.

Modified Scenario #4: Boy meets girl. Boy wants to have sex with girl, but girl is not
really attracted to boy. Instead of rejecting his interests though, girl first finds out if
boy has job connections and/or makes an above-average amount of money. If Boy
does, Girl pretends to have romantic and sexual interest in Boy indefinitely in order
to be in a position to receive financial favors. When Girl finally gets bored with him
and his favors, she then dumps him. Boy is hurt and feels 'used' and manipulated.

Problem identified? Girl used her looks, feminine charms and sex appeal to gain
financial and employment favors. Boys call these girls "users" and "gold
diggers." Boys can exhibit their own brand of "fury" and "vindictive wrath," so girls ...
be careful.

Modified Scenario #5: Boy meets girl. Boy wants to have sex with girl. Boy
expresses an interest in only casual sex, but girl wants more long-term sex. Just as
Boy is about to leave Girl alone, he finds out Girl is pregnant with his baby. All of the
sudden, Boy goes AWOL.

Problem identified? Boy never wanted to create a family with girl. He just wanted a
good time sexually. But boy was irresponsible and lustful, and failed to wear a
condom (and/or the girl lied and said she was taking birth control pills when she
wasn't). Now, boy will have to pay child support until that baby is eighteen years of
age. All of this new (and unwanted) fatherly responsibility for a pleasurable orgasm.

I could go on and on by adding new "wrinkles" and dysfunctional factors to the

original premise, and I'm sure you could too. Bottom line, when you deviate from my
original basic premise, this is where the vast majority of problems between men and
women begin. Write down some of your own deviations from the original scenario to
identify common problems you have observed between men and women.

3) Know what you want, don't settle for less, and don't try to change or
improve anyone else

Comment: I find in my conversations with members of both genders that most men
and women really do not know what they want in a companion. They know they want
some sort of physical, romantic and sexual companionship, but they fail to be
decisive on what specific characteristics and attributes they want in a potential
romantic and/or sexual companion.

Before my brother met his now wife, he wrote down as many attributes and
characteristics that he wanted in a wife on a piece of paper. When he met a woman
who possessed the most qualities similar to his list of desired traits, he dated her,
proposed to her, and married her. I think all men and women need to follow this idea.
Next to lies and general ineffective communication related to sex, the second
primary factor that creates animosity between men and women is when a man or
woman attempts to date someone that is simply not a good match for them. Rather
than leaving this person alone and moving on to a more desirable companion, you
instead try to 'change' your current partner into the romantic companion you would
ideally like them to be. If that man or woman wants something from you, they will
"play the role" of your ideal companion for a while. Then, at some point, their true
self will be revealed. And you will feel like you wasted a lot of valuable time (and
money).

Quick recap:

- Don't offer broad generalizations about men and/or women's behavior;

- Express your true sexual desires, interests and intentions in an upfront,
straightforwardly honest manner;
- Know what you want in a romantic companion before you even think about
engaging in a committed relationship with them.

I can't wait to read a Facebook status report that says, "I used to have problems with
women until I read Alan Roger Currie's Examiner.com article. Now, I am problem-
free!!"

More than likely though, some bitter person will write, "Alan Roger Currie ... another
pseudo-psychologist offering dating advice. *smh* "

Okay. As you were . . . .

How women respond to you
often times depends on the
"Alpha" vs "Beta" dynamics
In a recent article of mine, I used the terms "Alpha Male" and "Beta Male." Many
men who have read my booksare familiar with these terms (it has nothing to do with
fraternities on college campuses), but other men and many women may have never
heard of this terminology before. What exactly do these terms mean, and how do
they relate to dating and relationships?

Generally speaking, an "Alpha Male" is a male who has natural leadership qualities,
represents total heterosexual 'manliness,' and possesses an innate tendency to be
dominant and competitive in nature.

A "Beta Male" on the other hand is a male whose primary nature is to defer to
someone else's leadership and authority, rather than assume a leadership position
himself. Beta males are generally seen as somewhat passive and/or more
compromising than the average Alpha Male.

Some men are under the misguided belief that it is they who get to 'choose' which
category they most appropriately belong in. Sorry. Doesn't work that way. For the
most part, it is the women who you interact with who determine how "Alpha" you are
and/or how "Beta" you are. You might chat with "Lisa" on Monday, and she will give
you the respect of a Total Alpha Male, but you might be hanging out with "Denise" on
Friday, and she might treat you like a Total Beta Male.

The categories I am about to describe contribute heavily to your relationship

dynamics with women. Ever wonder why some women treat certain guys like they
would hop in bed with them in a micro-second, while they treat other men like you
couldn't pay them six figures to have sex with them? These four categories below will
enlighten you.

Total Alpha Male

Very few men achieve the status of "Total Alpha Male." This is the type of guy that
other men tend to naturally defer to, and almost immediately give them their due
respect. Or, in some cases, other men feel threatened by these manly men and try
their best to stay away from them (and keep their women away from them). Usually,
women respond to Total Alpha Males almost as soon as they are in this type of
man's physical presence.

How can you tell when women perceive you as a Total Alpha Male? When you
really don't have to put forth any effort and/or do too much talking in order to attract
and seduce a woman. A Total Alpha Male can many times just look at a woman,
and a woman will be ready to take off their clothes and sleep with him. That is how
powerful a Total Alpha Male's testosterone and pheromones are. You could be
broke and/or unemployed, or be maintaining a harem of multiple sex partners in your
'stable,' and women will still want to have sex with you. Many times, even married
women and women in committed relationships will want to exchange orgasms with
you. Women will typically show sexual interest in you first ... before you express
any sort of sexual flirtatiousness towards them.

If there is any "drawback" to being perceived as a Total Alpha Male, it would be that
very few women will view you as "marriage material" or maintain a desire to remain
in a long-term committed relationship with you because they will find the sexual
attention you receive from other women to be too intimidating.

Your best chance for a long-term relationship would probably have to be an "open
relationship" or something resembling a "swinger." Some women will remain faithful
to you though, even though they know you are sexually satisfying other
women. Have you ever met men who have never been married, and never have
maintained a long-term monogamous relationship with any woman, but they have a
number of children out of wedlock? More often than not, those men were perceived
by women as Total Alpha Males.

Men tend to refer to these guys as "pimps" and "players." Women often refer to
these men as "jerks" or "womanizers."

Best Celebrity Male Example and/or Movie Character: Even though he's now
deceased, the late, great NBA legend Wilt Chamberlain (who was rumored to have
slept with 20,000 women in his adult life) would probably best fall into this category.
Wilt never married, but was never at a lack for female companionship. Many male
adult film stars would fall into this category as well. The movie character of James
Bond (particularly as played by the legendary Sean Connery) would best fall into
this category.

Alpha Male with Beta Tendencies

The category of "Alpha Male with Beta Tendencies" represents what is arguably the
most sought-after group of men in society by women out of the four categories. This
is the type of guy that women ideally want to date and marry, but they would be
willing to settle for regular or semi-regular casual sex with these same guys as well.
Women generally find men in this category equally sexually appealing as well as
romantically desirable.

How can you tell when women perceive you as an Alpha Male with Beta
Tendencies? Women will do just about anything to please you in a relationship and
hold on to you as a long-term companion or spouse. They will want to be the mother
to your children. They will always let you know that you are the one in charge of the
relationship. Women will ideally want you to remain faithful to them, but if you were
to be caught cheating, more than likely, your wife or girlfriend will forgive you.
Women see you as being both a protector and provider.
If you are perceived by women to be an Alpha Male with Beta Tendencies, women
will sometimes try to "challenge you," so be prepared for it. They want to make sure
that you have more "Alpha" in your DNA than "Beta." So sometimes, a woman might
purposely act defiant towards you, or get very sassy and smart-alecky with you, just
to keep you on your toes and see what you are truly made of.

Men tend to refer to these guys as "ladies' men" while the vast majority of women
often refer to these men as a "good catch" or "husband material."

Best Celebrity Male Example and/or Movie Character: Brad Pitt and Boris
Kodjoe would probably best represent male celebrities who most women would
perceive as Alpha Males with Beta Tendencies. These men are thought of as good
husbands and companions, but there are also many women who would have casual
sex with them. Bruce Willis' character of "Officer John McClane" in the Die
Hard series of feature-films would be a good movie character example.

Beta Male with Alpha Tendencies

A "Beta Male with Alpha Tendencies" is the type of guy that women will only want to
have sex with under one of two conditions: 1) If the guy is financially self-sufficient
and willing to support a spouse/companion and her children (even if the children are
from a previous relationship or marriage with another man) and/or2) if the guy is
100% committed to remaining faithful to the woman in a monogamous relationship
and allowing her to essentially "call the shots" in the relationship.

Have you ever seen a man in a relationship where it was clear that the woman was
"wearing the pants?" (i.e., the woman is the more dominant, decision-making
partner) Dominant, controlling Alpha Females love men who are Beta Males with
Alpha Tendencies.

How can you tell when women perceive you as a Beta Male with Alpha
Tendencies? Everything about a woman's conversation with you will center on your
degree of career success, your degree of financial success, and/or how
monogamous-minded you are. These are the most important qualities and attributes
to a woman when she perceives you as a Beta Male with Alpha Tendencies. The
woman might feign as if you are "in control" of the relationship at times, but rest
assured, that is all a well-crafted performance on her part. Deep-down, this woman
knows that she is calling the shots.

If you are perceived by women to be a Beta Male with Alpha Tendencies, women will
only look to have sex with you within the context of a long-term monogamous
relationship. Casual sex is out of the question. Many times, even in a marriage, you
might have to damn near "beg" for sex from your wife. Sex will many times be
erratic (women are only having sex with you out of obligation ... not true desire or
passion). Don't ever think about cheating on these women or losing your high-
paying job. If either happens, you're history. And even if you don't lose your job or
cheat on your wife or girlfriend, there is at least a 40-50% chance that she is
cheating on you with a Total Alpha Male or Alpha Male with Beta Tendencies.
Men tend to refer to these guys as "henpecked" while women often refer to these
men as "nice guys" or "sweethearts." But women ... beware: If you push men in this
category too much, they will unleash their more fiery side (think of Michael Jai
White's character of "Marcus" in Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married? &Why Did I
Get Married Too?)

Best Celebrity Male Example and/or Movie Character: Ben Stiller or Steve Carell,
and just about any character they portray in a romantic comedy. Seth Rogen's
character of "Ben Stone" in the popular romantic comedy, Knocked Up is a great
example.

Total Beta Male

A "Total Beta Male" is the type of guy that will usually end up being most women's
favorite "platonic friend" and/or "play brother." Plain and simply, women do not find
these types of guys romantically and/or sexually appealing. Women would much
rather share the company of a Total Beta Male in a "let's just be friends" manner
than anything romantic or sexual. Women love to use these guys as a faithful
"listening ear" while they vent about the Alpha Males who dumped them, and left
them feeling hurt, irritated and/or frustrated.

How can you tell when women perceive you as a Total Beta Male? Anytime women
get totally turned off by you when you try to act flirtatious, romantic and/or sexual in
their company. If you flirt with a woman, and her first response is to be repulsed,
and immediately say things like, "Sorry [your first name here], but I don't look at you
that way. You're like a little / big brother to me. Having sex with you would feel like
incest!!" then this means that this particular woman perceives you as a Total Beta
Male.

If you are perceived as a Total Beta Male, you will be in the dreaded "friend zone"
indefinitely. The only thing worse than being a Total Beta Male is being anOmega
Male. Women want nothing to do with an Omega Male, even platonically. An
Omega male is a total, total loser not even worthy of being "just friends" with a
woman.

Best Celebrity Male Example and/or Movie Character: Jay Leno or Conan O'Brien.
These guys are perceived as funny and great talk show hosts, but I've never heard
any women categorize either as "heartthrobs" or "sex symbols" (but both are happily
married). Michael Cera and Christopher Mintz-Plasse's characters
in Superbad are pretty much Total Beta Males.

Have you ever been in a situation where when you first met a woman, she acted
very flirtatious towards you ... but then days, weeks or months later, she started
behaving as though she was irritated by any flirtatious behavior you exhibited toward
her? This is usually a sign that a woman initially perceived you as a Total Alpha
Male, or an Alpha Male with Beta Tendencies, but once she got to know you better,
she realized that you were nothing more than a Total Beta Male or Beta Male with
Alpha Tendencies.
Same with the reverse scenario. I have sometimes had women in my life initially
treat me like a Beta Male, but then days, weeks or months later, they began to give
me the respect of an Alpha Male or Alpha Male with Beta Tendencies. (This is
actually why "Seduction Gurus" and "Dating Coaches" are in high demand these
days. These guys primarily get paid to teach men who have 'beta' tendencies how to
develop their more 'alpha' side)

Some of what contributes to your Alpha or Beta status is physical appearance and
genetics (example: tall, athletic and muscular with defined cheek bones will usually
cause Alpha perceptions in women), while the remaining 50-60% of what determines
how women perceive you is your overall behavior, attitude, personality and
demeanor while in a woman's presence (for example, fawning over a woman
excessively will immediately provoke a beta perception).

Read one or more of my books if you want to find out more about how personality
and behavior plays into women's perceptions of you.

In my next article, I will do a similar break down of women. Why are some women
consistently perceived as "wife material" while other women are relegated to the role
of "mistress" or "side piece?" I will offer my perspective to my female readers that
will surely be entertaining and enlightening. Until then . . .
When you understand the
Madonna/Whore Complex,
you pretty much
understand men
Well ladies, unfortunately, this might be one of the last articles I ever write that will be
specifically geared towards my female readers. If you pay close attention, my official
title here on Examiner.com is "Hollywood (CA) Men's Dating AdviceExaminer." This
means technically, I am only supposed to be giving advice to men on how to attract
and seduce women, or maintain a relationship and/or marriage with a female
companion or spouse.

Therefore, I hope you appreciate the knowledge and wisdom I am about to drop on
you in this last article geared towards the female gender. Now, I could be charging
women (as I do many men) for a personal "consultation," (and make $$$ from you),
but I'm going to be generous (and/or stupid), and offer you a brief primer on men and
the way they think for FREE.

I always hear women express comments like, "I just don't understand him!" "Why
does he act this way??" "Men's behavior is so frustrating and confusing!!" Baloney. I
have been a man for 40+ years, and there is very little, if anything, about men's
behavior (as it relates to dating and relationships) that I would categorize as complex
or confusing.

Frustrating to women? Sure. Anytime you are a woman, and you want a man to
behave one way, but he chooses to behave in a manner that is not conducive to your
wants, needs and/or expectations, you are going to find his behavior "frustrating" at
times. Again though, 'frustrating' is not nearly synonymous with 'complex' or 'hard-to-
understand.'

Men are fairly simple creatures, and particularly when it comes to dating and
relationships. I'm going to try to keep things as simple as possible.

If you want to understand men, you have to familiarize yourself with the
"Madonna/Whore Complex"

The first key to understanding why men behave the way they do toward women is to
understand the effects of a man who suffers from what is known as The
Madonna/Whore Complex. First coined by the legendary
psychologist/psychiatrist Sigmund Freud, this concept explains how men look at
women in terms of romantic interest vs. purely sexual interest.

Without getting too 'academic' and/or too elaborate and convoluted with my
explanation(s), I'll try to break things down in simple terms:

The first woman that men grow up admiring and respecting is their
mother. With the exception of if they experienced some sort of abusive and/or
dysfunctional relationship with their mother or step-mother, there is no woman that a
man will hold in greater esteem than good ol' MOM. (Hint to ladies looking to find a
husband: Always ask a man, "Tell me about your relationship with your mother...")

Let's make this clear: A MAN'S MOM = A MAN'S BEST REPRESENTATION OF

WHAT A "RESPECTABLE WOMAN" SHOULD LOOK LIKE AND HOW SHE
SHOULD BEHAVE.

Got that? Good. Let's move on from there.

Men who have traits of the Madonna/Whore Complex generally tend to place all
women into two distinct categories: 1) women who men want as their girlfriend and
potential wife, and 2) women who men just want to have casual (and kinky) sex with.

If you want to be considered "girlfriend" and/or "wife" material to a man who

possesses Madonna/Whore Complex traits, then your moral character, overall
behavior and general physical appearance should be as similar to that man's mother
as possible. In the small percentage chance that the man who you are attracted to
had a not-so-great relationship with his mother or step-mother, then you want to
exhibit behavior that is far different than his Mom (If the relationship was bad,
abusive or dysfunctional, then you definitely do not want to draw comparisons to his
Mom).

When looking to attract a potential husband, a lot of women think to

themselves, "Well .. I'll wear my short, tight dress ... a cute, sexy thong ... and I know
this will grab his attention!" Uhm ... no. Not so fast. Did a man's Mom dress like
that? Probably not. Men do not want to look at their mothers in any sort of "sexual"
manner. That is a huge "no no" for the vast majority of men.

TRY 'TOO HARD' TO BE SEXY = YOU CAUSE A MAN'S INTEREST IN

MARRYING YOU TO DIMINISH

Note: Just about every form of behavior that men exhibit toward women can be
directly or indirectly connected to how affected that man is by the Madonna/Whore
Complex.

You see, a fully evolved man can handle a woman having two opposing personalities
in one body. In other words, a fully evolved man can handle a woman showing signs
of both the proverbial "good girl" and the "naughty bad girl." This is where the
term, "A lady in the streets, and a kinky freak in the sheets"comes from. If you
can find a man like this, hold on to him. Matter of fact, you should put a ring on his
finger.
A man who suffers from the Madonna/Whore complex cannot handle the "two-
personalities-in-one-body" scenario. No, not at all. Unfortunately, for these men ...
which is arguably the vast majority of men in society ... they want to see the "good
girl" persona in one body, and the "naughty bad girl" persona in another, totally
different body. Put simply, they want to date and marry the "good girl," and they
want to have the "kinky, freaky girl" as their mistress, side piece, jump-off, or
whatever other nickname you have for the "woman on the side."

With the Madonna/Whore complex, a man does not want his girlfriend or wife to
have any "kinky" or "freaky" traits whatsoever. If a man perceives you as a 100%
"good girl," revealing any characteristics of a 'kinky freak' might just traumatize him
psychologically (seriously). This is akin to him thinking of his mother, favorite
grandmother, or favorite aunt as a "kinky freak." Uh oh. See what you did. That
man just threw up a little bit in his mouth on the mere visualization of his own mother
being 'kinky.'

The man who suffers from the Madonna/Whore Complex wants his girlfriend or wife
to be "pure," "innocent," and wholesome. On the flip side, he wants his mistress or
"side woman" to be as slutty, kinky and erotically uninhibited as humanly
possible. Do you think Tiger Woods wanted soon-to-be ex-wife Elin to be his
"freaky woman" in bed? Heck no. Elin was Tiger's good girl. Elin was Tiger's
"trophy" to show off in public. Do you think Jesse James wanted Sandra Bullock to
be a "naughty bad girl?" No way. And this is exactly why Tiger and Jesse cheated
on their ex-wives. Elin and Sandra were supposed to represent "classiness" and
"wholesomeness" ... not kinkiness and freakiness. The latter is reserved for the "on-
the-side" woman/women.

WHY DO MEN CHEAT? Simple. Because men who suffer from the
Madonna/Whore Complex do not want their girlfriend or wife to be the one to satisfy
their kinkiest desires and sexual urges. In the mind of a man who suffers from the
Madonna/Whore Complex, the job of a girlfriend or wife is to represent the best
qualities of that man's mother. It is the job of the "woman-on-the-side" to attend to
the sexual component of their life. The job of the "good girl" wife is to raise healthy
children, look good in public, and maintain a classy, wholesome demeanor around
the man's friends, relatives and business colleagues.

Caution: If you are the "side woman," get rid of those hopes of being "upgraded" to
wifey status. 99.999% chance, it will never happen. You are the "side piece" for a
reason, and that reason is, you do not remind that man of his mother in any way,
shape or form. Your role is for sexual satisfaction only.

I read all of these reports about women who are attractive, educated, and successful
in their careers being single past the age of 30, 35 or even 40. Why is this? How can
this happen? Easy. For starters, just because you are attractive, educated, and
successful in your career does not mean you are like MAMA. Do not lose sight of
this. Men, generally speaking, want to marry the woman who closely
resembles MAMA (I cannot tell you how many of my male friends and
acquaintances are married to a woman who is very, very similar to that man's mother
in appearance and/or behavior & demeanor).
Did Mama use a laptop and own her own software company? Nope. Mama stayed
home and baked cookies, watched soap operas and helped the kids finish their
homework. Mama was simple in nature ... not high tech. And Mama definitely was
not highly promiscuous and "getting her freak on" (at least, not that her son ever
knew of, and ever will know of, Lord willing).

PLAY UP YOUR FREAKINESS = YOU ARE AUDITIONING FOR THE ROLE OF

THE SIDE PIECE.
PLAY UP YOUR "MOTHERLY" and "WIFEY" QUALITIES = ATTRACT A HUSBAND

Is that rocket science? Of course not. If you are a woman who has no interest in
getting married or raising your children with an active husband involved, then all of
what I am saying goes right out the window. If you are one of the new, independent,
high-powered 21st Century women who "doesn't need a man," then more power to
you. Everything I am telling you right now is a moot point.

I am specifically trying to help out those women out here in society who are still
holding on to the hope of attracting a potential husband and getting married
someday soon.

Let's recap:

MAN LOOKS AT ALL WOMEN AS "GOOD GIRLS" = NAIVE and STUPID "MAMA'S
BOY"

MAN LOOKS AT ALL WOMEN AS "KINKY FREAKS" = PIMP / INCORRIGIBLE

WOMANIZER

MAN SUFFERS FROM THE MADONNA/WHORE COMPLEX (i.e., LOOKS AT

WOMEN IN TWO CATEGORIES: "GOOD GIRLS" and "KINKY FREAKS") = MOST
LIKELY TO DATE and MARRY THE "GOOD GIRL," AND CHEAT ON THE SIDE
WITH THE "KINKY FREAK"

MAN CAN ACCEPT ONE WOMAN BEING BOTH A "GOOD GIRL" and A "KINKY
FREAK" = FULLY EVOLVED MAN THAT NEEDS TO BE SNATCHED UP QUICK

In appreciation for this simple "Understanding Men 101" Tutorial, send all donations
of gratitude to "Alan-You-Really-Break-Some-Stuff-Down@modeone.net"

Enjoy your week. By the way ... since I am single as of this article, I have to throw
this out there: My late mother LOVED Peach Snapple and knew how to cook some
damn good chicken wings. I'm just sayin' . . .
Female readers challenge
columnist's opinions and
perceptions of women
Maybe the idea of the "Letters from Readers" will have to be a new feature of mine
here on Examiner.com based on the feedback I receive from various male and
female readers of my column. Actually, I'm using the term 'letters' very loosely,
because we all know in this day and age, the vast majority of us communicate by
either Email and/or social networking sites, such as Facebook.

Interesting note: Probably 80-90% of the Email messages I receive regarding one or
more of my Examiner.com articles are typically from women rather than men, even
though my official title is "Hollywood (CA) Men's DatingAdvice Examiner." Go figure.

I have already featured one article that highlighted feedback I received from both
readers of my articles and listeners to my radio show (Click Here for previous
article, then click here for listener/reader survey). Recently, all of my feedback has
been in response to one or more of my last four articles. I will now highlight each
Email message I have received in relation to each article . . .

[Note: real first names have become fictional first names for the sake of anonymity]

Email feedback in response to my article, The Allure of Hollywood Success

and the Future Generation of 'Norma Desmond' types:

From Margaret S.:

"Alan, how dare you assert that it is women who go into the 'Hollywood Game'
looking to manipulate rich, powerful men!! Are you that chauvinistic? Or just
plain clueless? Women get manipulated by wealthy, powerful men on a DAILY
basis. You said your article was a 'cautionary tale' for women, but in reality,
you attempted to foolishly 'blame the victim' for the male-oriented and male
endorsed manipulative game playing that goes on in the Entertainment
Industry and other similar industries."

Alan's response: Unless a woman has a gun pointed to her head or her only possible
choice for earning a living can be found within the confines of Hollywood, no aspiring
actress, aspiring singer or aspiring model "has to" exchange sexual companionship
for an opportunity to 'climb the ladder' in the Entertainment Industry. If a woman
whores herself out for career success, fame and forture, then that is her choice.

You can't walk the streets of Sunset Boulevard as a prostitute, accept money from
strangers, go to bed with these marks and tricks, and then turn around and
say, "Men are such pigs. All they want is sex." Life does not work that way. You
make your choices ... and if you are mature, you live with the repercussions and
consequences that accompany those choices and decisions.

From Linda J.:

"I am a 45-year old woman who is still considered to be very, very attractive by
the men I meet. I would estimate that I get just as much attention from men
now as I did when I was 35 or 40. I noticed in your article, you said that
younger women look for 'bad boys' and older women look for 'nice guys.' I
don't know if I agree with that. I have always looked for the 'nice guys,' but all I
have found is bad boys 'pretending to be' nice guys. These nice guys, or 'beta
males' as you call them, are just as horny and superficial as the bad boys, but
they are less handsome, less charming and have less sex appeal. What is a
younger woman OR older woman to do?"

Alan's response: I never said that if a woman is attractive between the age of 18 and
35, she is automatically going to become physically "unattractive" at the age of 40,
45 or even 50. Never said that or implied that. I know some women who are actually
more attractive in their 40s than they were in their 20s and/or 30s. Particularly if they
have mastered the habit of eating right and exercising.

The reality is this though: A recent guest of my talk radio show, Steve Penner,
highlighted the fact that in his twenty-plus years of working in the dating
andrelationships field, there is definitely a "power shift" (as Penner categorizes
it) that happens between men and women starting with the mid-to-late 30s. There
are men who definitely still may find women age 35+ attractive and sexy, but
generally speaking, a woman who is 45 or 50 will never have the same number of
men competing for their attention and companionship as the average attractive
woman who is 25, 30 or 35. Particularly if those men are looking for women to have
children for them.

The most challenging period in the life of a single woman, in regards to dating and
relationships, is that period between roughly 36 and 49. This is when women's "stock
value" drops the most significantly as a candidate for marriage among men who are
looking for women to give birth to their children and help them raise those
children. Again, my guest (Penner) pointed this out, based on his conversations with
literally thousands of single women in that age group. I just had a discussion on
my talk radio show about the dating challenges of single women who are 40 years
of age and older who have never been married and/or have no children.

Email feedback in response to my article, The problems between men and

women are not that complex:

From Patricia N.:

"I enjoyed your article Alan about the 'problems between men and women,' but
I did have a problem with a couple of your 'Modified Scenarios.' #2 and #5.
First, #2. Why should a woman feel obligated to share her sexual past with a
man she is dating? Personally, I like to leave the past in the past. Most women
have gone through an 'experimental phase' when we were in high school,
college or right after college. Why do I need to share this with a man now?
Secondly, on #5, are you saying that men should be excused from taking care
of a child? Most women do not 'trick' men into having sex and not wearing a
condom. If you believe that, you are very biased toward your own gender."

Alan's response: The vast majority of men I have interacted with in my life usually
are curious about a woman's sexual past, and more importantly, the decision-making
process that led to her sexual choices. This is particulary true when they are
considering elevating a woman to 'serious girlfriend' status and/or 'wife status.' I
don't know how many times I have to say this, but men are far different than women
when it comes to details related to one's past sexuality (when I say 'past,' I am more
so referring to a woman's recent sexual past; If you are say, 37, and you were very
'experimental' between the ages of 18 and 24, most men could care less. But if your
'experimental phase' lasted until you were 35 or 36 ... then yes, men care).

Women ... to their credit ... are usually very forgiving and non-judgmental when it
comes to a man's history of promiscuity and past 'wild' behavior. The vast majority
of men are not like that. Many times, men can be very unforgiving and/or judgmental
when it comes to a woman's past instances of highly promiscuous behavior. I say,
simply answer the questions that your new boyfriend asks you very honestly. If you
are honest, and a man dumps you because of your honesty, why would you have
wanted to remain with that particular man anyway? You should always choose to be
with a man who loves you for who you really are.

On to your other point, I never said that most women or all women "trick" men into
being sexually irresponsible (although, you and I both know ... SOME women will lie
about being on the pill). My main point in that piece was to offer a valid explanation
for why many men go "AWOL" after finding out a woman is pregnant with their
baby. I am not absolving these men of any fatherly responsibility, but I am simply
telling you bluntly that if a man initially just wanted to have casual sex with you (i.e.,
you were nothing more than a "booty call" in his eyes), he is not going to be "excited'
about the idea of being connected to you for up to eighteen years by virtue of a very
unwanted pregnancy.

Email feedback in response to my article about "Alpha Male" vs "Beta Male"

dynamics:

From Angela B.:

"I just finished reading your article about 'Alpha' men and 'Beta' men. It was
interesting, but I don't know if I totally agree with it. In this article, you make
the 'Beta' men seem so undesirable. It is as if you are saying that the more a
man is interested in having a monogamous relationship, the more 'wimpy' he
is, but if he is a ladies' man, a womanizer or a player, the more of a 'manly
man' he is. What woman in her right mind wants to date a womanizer? I look
at men in two categories: 'likely to be faithful to me' and 'likely to cheat on
me.' I don't want anything to do with the latter. I don't care how 'Alpha' these
cheating men are."
Alan's response: I would never go as far as to say, or suggest, that "all" men with
heavy 'Alpha' traits are promiscuous or that "all" men who possess more 'Beta' traits
are monogamous-minded. That is simply not true. Here is the deal: A man who is a
"Total Alpha Male" would never have to 'cheat' on a woman in order to have multiple
sex partners (in other words, Tiger Woods with his rampant infidelity proved that he
was not the Total Alpha Male that many of his male fans might have initially fancied
him to be based on his accumulated wealth and/or competitive spirit on the golf
course).

A man who is a Total Alpha Male is always going to have women throwing
themselves at him sexually and women know this. Women openly accept that a man
of this type is not the "monogamous relationship" type. Total Alpha Male types do
not have to tell lies to get laid. Lying and cheating is more of a Beta gesture.

At least three of my four categories have "pros" and "cons" to them. The only
category where I will say there is no real 'upside' is "Total Beta Male." If the vast
majority of women you socialize with perceive you as a Total Beta Male, you will be
in the dreaded "friend zone" indefinitely (or, until you read Mode One).

From Oprah Winfrey:

"I am very much an 'Alpha Female' and I know for a fact that no man with too
many 'Alpha' traits could ever hold my interest for more than a day or two. My
boyfriend Stedman (Graham) is a great example of what you refer to as a "Beta
Male with Alpha Tendencies." There are moments when Stedman can be
romantic and sexy, and other moments where he chooses to be supportive of
my goals, objectives and efforts and let me be me. This is why our relationship
has lasted for so long."

Alan's response: Okay, okay ... I am being facetious again, just as I did in my last
"Letters from Listeners/Readers" article with my fictitious Email note from Stacey
Dash (Not to brag, but I had literally dozens of men and women write me an "LOL,"
"LMAO," or "ROTHFLMAO" for that seemingly real note from Ms. Dash!) But keepin'
it real? Stedman Graham, Oprah's long-time beau, is definitely a great example of a
Beta Male with Alpha Tendencies. Matter of fact, Stedman is pretty much the "gold
standard" for that category. But watch out Stedman ... Nick Cannon is gaining on
you!

Email feedback in response to my article about Women understanding the

Madonna/Whore Complex:
From Tiffany C.:

"I loved your article that enlightened me to just how affected men are by this
whole 'Madonna/Whore Complex' concept. Since I was in high school, I
noticed that the boys always wanted to categorize the girls as either 'good
girls' or 'sluts.' Why do so many of you men feel compelled to label us at
all? Why can't women just be women? You used the term 'fully evolved men.'
What about fully evolved women? Why am I 'sexually duplicitous' (your term
Alan) if I want to be a 'lady in the streets and a freak in the sheets' for my
man? I don't get men sometimes. You want kinky sex from us, and then when
you are lucky enough to get it from us, you go behind our back and call us all
sort of names to your boys. It is just unfair."

Alan's response: Whoever said life was "fair?" (I couldn't resist using that centuries-
old adage). I have mixed feelings about the whole concept of men "unfairly" labeling
women. First, let me clear up what I mean when I use the term, 'sexually duplicitous'
(a term I use very frequently):

Example #1: If you are dating 'Brian,' and you present yourself as a classy woman
when you are out in public with Brian, but then when you get home, and it is
"naughty time," and you let your kinky, freaky side out with Brian, that is not
representative of being "sexually duplicitous." That would simply be representative
of you being private and discreet regarding your sexual habits in the bedroom with
your boyfriend Brian.

Example #2: Let's say, on the other hand, that you met Brian, and you told him that
you did not approve of 'casual sex' in any form, and that he would have to wait until
he put a ring on your finger, or he would have to wait until you two were married
before you would allow him to have sex with you.

Naturally, in Brian's mind, you would now be perceived as a "good girl." But let's
say, just days or weeks before you met Brian, you had interacted with the handsome
and studly "Tyrone," and you chose to exchange pleasurable orgasms with the hot
and freaky Tyrone within the first 24-48 hours after you made his acquaintance.
(remember when I talked about a woman's recent sexual past versus her distant
sexual past?)

In other words, you gave Brian the misleading impression that you are "not at all into
casual sex," but with Tyrone, you were all for engaging in a one-night stand,
weekend fling, or a few weeks of casual sex enjoyment (maybe Brian is a Beta Male
with Alpha Tendencies and Tyrone is a Total Alpha Male ... many times, that makes
all the difference. Seriously). This sort of conduct on your part would be
representative of what I refer to as "sexually duplicitous" behavior. In my book,Mode
One, I refer to women who frequently exhibit sexually duplicitous behavior as
"Wholesome Pretenders" and/or "Erotic Hypocrites."

Sometimes men are too judgmental and too quick to attach a 'label' to a woman
because of her sexual habits and sexual past, but realistically, there are a lot of
women in society in today's generation who want to "have their cake and eat it
too." There are far too many women who want the sex life of an adult film actress or
polyamorous swinger, but they want to maintain the image and reputation of a
Sunday School teacher. You cannot have it both ways. Eventually, your duplicity is
going to be exposed by one or more of your ex-boyfriends and/or ex-lovers, and the
double life you're trying to execute is going to come to a screeching halt.

If you rob a bank, you cannot get mad when people call you a "thief." If you kill
people unnecessarily out of anger and emotional impulse, you cannot get mad when
people call you a "murderer." Similarly, if you hop from one man's bed (who is not
your boyfriend or husband) to another man's bed (who is not your boyfriend or
husband) to another man's bed (who may now be your boyfriend or husband), you
cannot get mad if some men decide to attach a subjective label or opinionated
judgment to such sexually free-spirited behavior.

Okay, that is it for now. Until next time .... keep those letters ... uhm, Email
messages ... coming. I enjoy them. Or, if you are bold enough, leave your feedback
in the "comments" section below or on my Facebook page.
Men: nothing wrong with
letting women know that all
you want is 'just sex'
As a man, how many times have you heard members of the opposite sex express
comments such as, "All men think about is sex!" "All men want from women is sex!"
"Why is it that a man cannot enjoy a woman's company without making an attempt to
get in her pants?"

In my free time, I peruse many dating & relationships message boards and
inevitably, I can't help but run across at least a handful of discussion threads where
some woman is whining about being 'used' for sex.

Men ... please don't allow yourselves to become intimidated by these highly
subjective and disparaging criticisms and invalid fault-finding. Yours Truly says, if all
you want from a woman is sex, just say so. Ahhh. Easier said than done, huh? The
"just say so" portion of the conversation is exactly what is extremely challenging for
the vast majority of men.

Men have been brainwashed to believe that straightforwardly asking for sex is
somehow 'bad,' 'rude' and/or socially inappropriate and will cause them to be forever
labeled as a 'shallow, sex-crazed jerk.' Don't believe the hype. Nothing could be
further from the truth.

In Summer of 2007, I got invited to speak to a group of church-going folk and those
practicing celibacy and sexual abstinence in Northwest Indiana about Mode
One and my Four Modes of Verbal Communication. Initially, I was a bit
intimidated. I thought to myself, "how is a group of conservative-minded men and
middle age-to-older religious women going to feel about me encouraging men to be
upfront and straightforward about their desire for [casual] sex from women? Is my
skin thick enough for the harsh criticisms, insults and self-righteous judgments that
will surely be hurled my way at the conclusion of my presentation?"

To my mild surprise, my presentation was greeted with applause. The audience

loved my message. More specifically, at the end of my presentation I was
approached by a group of church-going women, most of them in their mid-to-late
fifties, sixties and seventies. These seemingly prudish-minded women encouraged
me to start a speaking tour in high schools and colleges about Mode One and
my Four Modes of Verbal Communication.

Their reasoning and motivation? One woman in the group said, "I am so tired of
these young [high school and college-aged] boys getting girls drunk or putting
Ecstasy pills and other date-rape drugs in their food and drinks in order to get them
to have sex. If these boys want sex, they need to be courageous enough to just
say so. Then, the girls would be in a position to either say 'Yes, I want to have sex'
or 'No, I don't want to have sex.'" (Now of course, these women believed that if their
daughters and nieces were brought up with the "right" values and principles, then
they would surely offer the latter response)

See, these spiritual women ... most of whom were staunchly against the idea of
premarital sex and promiscuous casual sex ... get it.

I've had a few women express criticisms of Mode One Behavior and offer
arguments such as, "if a guy approaches me ... and all that is on his mind is having
sex with me ... then I'm not down with that. That means he is just trying to 'use me' to
get his rocks off." My usual response is, "Let's say all a man wants to do IS get his
rocks off with you. Nothing more, nothing less. Wouldn't you want to know that from
the get-go so if you are not interested, you can simply reject him in an upfront
manner and not waste time??" Quite frequently, the next response is silence and/or
mumbled words.

A former mentor of mine once said, "You're not being 'used' if I tell you ahead of time
that I'm motivated to interact with you for one primary purpose or favor. I'm only
'using' you if I give you the impression that I want to interact with you for a wide
variety of mutually beneficial reasons, when in actuality, I only have one very self-
serving interest in mind." I agree with his definition.

In other words, if the only reason I am interacting with a woman is for two-to-three
weeks worth of enjoyable, kinky sex ... and I tell her that upfront and
straightforwardly, and she agrees to it ... I don't consider that "using her" for
sex. Now on the other hand, if I meet this same woman ... and I give her the
misleading impression that I enjoy her company because of her intellectual insight,
her profound wisdom, her charming personality and humor, and because I might
want to make her my wife one day ... when in actuality, I just want to exchange
orgasms with her for two-to-three weeks, then yes .... that would be representative
of using that woman.

Men, don't think for a second that women are not beyond using you for their own
self-serving reasons. Did you see the 1981 erotic thriller, Body Heat?
StarringWilliam Hurt and Kathleen Turner? One of the best feauture-film examples
of a woman who totally misled and manipulated a man for her own selfish gain. Did
Ned Racine (Hurt) get laid? Yes. Did he get played? Most definitely. (Movie lesson
for men: Getting laid is fun, but it's not always the be-all and end-all of a successful
interaction with a woman)

The very thing that many women cry about being used for ... sex ... is the very thing
that some of these same women with more exploitive, underlying agendas tend to
use as a tool of manipulation with men.

I had one woman enthusiastically declare to me at one of my book signing

events, "Alan, I loved reading your book ... but it is obvious that you are not a woman
(duh!). Do you know how many men I get to do favors for me by dangling the
prospect of having sex with me as a 'carrot on a stick?' I get men to mow my lawn for
free, fix my car for free, do my taxes for free, pick up my dry cleaning, find me jobs ...
everything. Just by giving a subtle hint that if they exhibit behavior that is pleasing to
me, I might just 'reward' them one day soon with sex. Now, if all of these men just
straightforwardly asked me for sex ... I would be forced to do one of two things:
reciprocate their interests or reject them. More than likely, it would be the latter. I
need some 'wiggle room.' Don't you get that?"

Trust me ... I get it.

The problem is, hundreds of thousands of men in society don't get it.

And that is why I continue with my mission of spreading the word about the Mode
One Philosophy & Principles.

My mission continues . . .
Common signs that your
new love interest might be
mentally unbalanced
Recently, I was reading some excerpts from Dr. Martha Stout's best-selling
book, The Sociopath Next Door. I have yet to read the book, but just the brief
content I read provoked a retrospective identification of each and every romantic or
sexual companion I have interacted with that didn't seem to be playing with a "full
deck."

Over the years, I have heard a number of men and women express comments such
as, "My ex-husband was crazy!!" or "my last girlfriend was a psycho!!" Many times,
all of us are guilty of using terms like 'crazy' and 'psycho' very, very lightheartedly
and loosely. For starters, there is a difference between being "weird,"
"unconventional," and/or "eccentric," and being truly "crazy," "mentally and
emotionally unbalanced," and "psychotic."

To be 'eccentric' simply means a man or woman possess a lot of habits, personality

traits and individual quirks that are perceived as "odd" or "very different" than the
'average' person in society. An example would be, a person eats breakfast cereal
using water instead of milk or a person who watches an hour-long television drama
while standing up when there is a couch or chair right behind them. Both examples
might cause some to say, "(S)he is weird!"

When a person exhibits behavior that others deem 'crazy,' this suggests that this
person tends to demonstrate tendencies that are hurtful and/or harmful to either a)
themselves, b) friends, relatives and acquaintances, or c) all of the above. An
example would be a woman who has a habit of taking a small knife, and puncturing
her own skin with it whenever she is agitated or upset, or a man who slashes the
tires of each and every girlfriend who has ever broken up with him. Both examples
would represent someone who is very mentally and/or emotionally unstable.

Given my love of movies, I think the two best films that feature mentally unbalanced
men and women as it relates to dating and relationships would be Glenn Close's
character of Alex Forrest in Fatal Attraction and Mark Wahlberg's character
of David McCall in Fear. There are a few other films I could use characters from,
such as Deceived, Misery, Play Misty for Me, Sleeping with the
Enemy, Swimfan, and What Lies Beneath, among a few other choices.

Just about all of the psychologists and psychiatrists who viewed Fatal
Attraction concluded that Close's character of Alex suffered from what is known as a
"personality disorder." There are actually eleven personality disorders that a man
or woman can fall victim to, with one of the most prominent ones beingBorderline
personality disorder. A few others would be Histrionic personality
disorder, Narcissistic personality disorder, and Obsessive-Compulsive
personality disorder.

What is deceiving about many "crazy companion" types is that initially, they always
tend to present themselves as normal, healthy, emotionally stable, and charming
people. Think about Alex and David in the above-mentioned films. Both came across
as very amiable, charismatic, and seemingly harmless when they first made the
acquaintance of their soon-to-be-targets. Friends, relatives, and acquaintances of
the notorious serial killer of women, Ted Bundy, often remarked, "We would have
never known (that he was mentally deranged)!! Ted seemed like such a gentleman!
Ted was such a nice guy!!" Riiiiiiight. I'm sureJohn Wayne Bobbitt thought his
former wife, Lorena, had sweet, soft hands when he met her.

My older brother and close friends know that I have had at least seven or eight
women who either flat-out stalked me, semi-stalked me, or just exhibited behavior
that I felt was highly irrational and overly emotional. A psychiatrist friend once told
me, "If you act crazy ... and you're consciously aware of the fact that the behavior
you're exhibiting is crazy ... then nine times out of ten, you're not crazy. But if you act
irrational and insane ... but in your mind, you think your behavior is 'normal' and
acceptable ... then this means you are more-than-likely crazy."

The key question for most is, "How do you get past the alluring facade of a potential
crazy / psycho / unstable / stalker type? How can I tell if a person has thepotential to
be crazy, even before they actually start acting crazy?"

So, based strictly on my own experiences, here would be my Top Ten Signs to
Look Out For (these signs, for the most part, apply to both genders ... and if not, I
will designate which signs are exclusive to one gender or the other):

10) The person appears as though they are trying to "rush you" into a
relationship.

Comment: Remember my 2010 column, Beware of the man or woman

who hates being single? You will find that the vast majority of men and
women who are emotionally unstable hate being single for an extended
period of time. There is actually a belief that is perpetuated among single
men that "psycho women make the best lovers." Whether that is true or
invalid, research shows that "crazy companion" types love affection and
attention. Mentally unbalanced types have been known to jump out of
one relationship right into the next one in a matter of a few days or a few
weeks.

9) The person comes across as very "thin-skinned," and ultra-sensitive to

criticisms, lighthearted insults, or jokes that make fun of them.

Comment: No one likes to be criticized, especially in an unfair and/or

excessively harsh manner. That being said, there are other people you
meet who just can't seem to accept any sort of criticism whatsoever.
These types cannot even handle a "playful jab" about something related
 to their physical appearance or general personality. Many men and
women who are unhinged tend to fall into this category.

8) The person frequently vacillates between being very, very happy and
confident to being very depressed and displaying signs of low self-esteem.

Comment: In my experience, one of the very early signs that a person

you've met may suffer from Manic-depressive disorder or Bipolarism,
is when a man or woman seems to experience very, very drastic mood
swings for no apparent reason. For example, if you converse with
someone right after they got fired from their job, or right after they were
just involved in a car accident where their favorite automobile got totaled,
a funky mood is understandable. On the other hand, when you talk to
someone at 12 Noon and they are perky and full energy, but you later talk
to them at 5:00 PM and they sound like their dog just died, and nothing
happened of significance in those five hours, something is wrong.

7) The person frequently "drops by your place" unexpectedly and

unannounced.

Comment: One of the early signs that you have a potential stalker type on
your hands is when a man or woman tends to drop by your place of work,
or place of residence, without calling first or giving you any sort of
warning. If it happens once, no real worries. If it happens twice, give them
the benefit of the doubt. If it happens three or more times, be very, very
wary.

6) When it comes to movies, the person only likes watching "fairy tale /
fantasy" flicks and films with "happy endings."

Comment: This is one where I am sure some will disagree, and

particularly a lot of women, but I have found that if a man or woman only
likes movies that highlight "fairy tale romances," and tend to have those
"and they lived happily ever after" type endings, there is at least a fifty
percent chance that you are dealing with person who is incapable of
handling the realistic challenges of life, and unexpected episodes of
adversity. If a man or woman's favorite film is Ever After or The
Princess Bride ... uh oh.

5) The person becomes incredibly angry, or starts crying, when you fail to
return a phone call in a timely manner, or you leave them feeling generally
ignored.

Comment: I remember once when I was in college, I met a woman and

we agreed to meet at the campus computer lab to study. I had some
things come up, and I was unable to meet her. This was in the days
before mobile phones were popular, so I wasn't able to call her ahead of
time and let her know I wasn't going to show up. This woman proceeded
to leave an answering machine message crying, and saying, "Alan ...
you're treating me less than human!" I was like, "wow." I played the
 message for my brother, and his immediate response was, "That
[woman] is crazy. Stay away from her." At the time, I laughed. Sure
enough, a few weeks later, this woman became the closest thing I have
ever experienced to a real-life version of Alex Forrest.

4) The person frequently exhibits behavior that is the adult equivalent to a

"spoiled brat."

Comment: There are some men and women who are mentally disturbed
because they have experienced something traumatic in their life (e.g.,
they saw their mother get murdered in front of their eyes as a child; their
father sexually abused them; etc.). Then, there are others who are crazy
simply because they have a very warped sense of reality and how the
real world works. One thing being involved in athletics at an early age
teaches you is that sometimes you are going to win, and sometimes you
are going to lose. Most crazy people are unable to handle instances
where things do not work out in their favor. They want things to go their
way just about all of the time. If someone appears to be spoiled to the
point of being highly irrational and self-delusional, watch yourself.

3) The person has very few, if any, close-knit friends or long-term friends.

Comment: Men and women who are mentally and emotionally unstable
generally don't tend to maintain too many close, long-term friendships
with others. If they have more than a handful of friendships, the
relationships usually involve erratic and/or occasional contact, and the
depth of the friendship is generally superficial. Most men and women who
are emotionally well-adjusted tend to have a number of people who they
have been close friends with for ten, fifteen, or twenty plus years.

2) The person expresses to you that they feel as though "they are in love with
you" after only a few days or a couple of weeks after you first meet them.

Comment: There is a big difference between infatuation and true love.

Many men and women become infatuated to others (such as celebrities),
but usually that attraction is based on image and looks. If you meet
someone on Monday, and by Friday, this same person has tears in their
eyes while expressing their undying love for you ... run. Run fast. This
person is more-than-likely emotionally unstable.

1) The person frequently exhibits behavior that is abnormally jealous and/or

possessive within days after you first meet them.

Comment: If you have been married to someone for two or three years
and they display jealous or possessive behavior, that is one thing. When
a man or woman begins to act jealous and possessive within two or three
weeks after they meet you, that is a sure-sign that you are potentially
dealing with a person who is a loon. For example, I had a few women in
my past who had very adverse reactions to seeing me in a photograph
with an ex-girlfriend or former lover. I had one woman who actually took
 some scissors and cut up one of my photos in my photo album of me and
a former girlfriend. When I asked her why she would so such a thing, she
said very calmly and matter-of-factly, "Why in the hell would I want to see
you in a picture with your ex? I don't want to see you in photos with other
women." Needless to say, she never heard from me again.

All I'm saying is be careful. That man or woman might seem like the most dynamic
person you have met in the last few months or years, but if they show any of the
above ten signs, you might want to slow things way down and take your time in
getting to know how this person thinks, how they react under a number of different
circumstances, and get a feel for their overall character, personality and integrity.

One more sign? Don't trust any man or woman who harshly criticizes those who eat
chicken wings and regularly drinks Peach Snapple. If someone does not have a
high opinion of wangs and Snapple, they must be insane. Those types are probably
at home right now watching their Splash DVD while eating a fried bologna sandwich
with cheese and drinking tap water from Los Angeles.

Crazy.

[Note: I am not a credentialed psychologist or a licensed psychiatrist; any advice I

offer in this column is based purely on personal experience, informal research and
my own opinions; if you seek advice related to mental illness, please consult
someone who is a board certified professional in the field of psychology]
Many women still have no
idea what a true misogynist
is
There are many terms that men and women have a bad habit of using
inappropriately and/or defining improperly. For example, some people in society
make the mistake of using the terms 'dumb,' 'stupid' and 'ignorant' interchangeably.
The term 'dumb' originally referred to men and women who were mute and unable to
speak. To exhibit 'stupidity' represents a frequent or consistent pattern of executing
unwise or foolish decisions (e.g., someone who borrows their friend's automobile,
knowing that they have a suspended driver's license). To be 'ignorant' means simply
'not to know'; A lack of knowledge.

If there is one term related to male-female relationships that falls into this category, it
is the popular hardcore feminist buzz word misogynist. Based on television talk
shows I have watched, radio interviews I have heard, and articles that I have read, I
have come to the conclusion that a good number of women (and even a good
number of men) really have no true grasp on what a misogynist really is.

I will outline some of the distinctions between commonly used terms that are
associated with negative attitudes toward members of the opposite sex:

Sexist: Sexism is to gender what racism is to ethnicity. A sexist is

someone who favors their own gender, and tends to discriminate against
members of the opposite gender. An example would be a male employer
who pays his male employees a higher salary than his female
employees, even though employees of both genders share the same job
responsibilities.

Chauvinist: Chauvinism (and yes, there is such a thing as a "female

chauvinist") represents when you maintain a firm belief that your own
gender is intellectually, emotionally, physically and/or morally 'superior' to
the opposite gender, and should be deemed as the 'dominant' gender in
society. An example would be someone who would offer a comment such
as, "I believe the worst male golfer in the PGA would destroy the best
female golfer in the LPGA in a one-on-one competition." (anyone
remember the Billy Jean King vs Bobby Riggs tennis match?)

Misogynist: This is the term that is in question in this article. A very

misunderstood concept for sure. Plain and simple, a misogynist is a man
(or woman in some cases) who literally and passionately hates women.
A misogynist does not like women, does not trust women, and would
generally like to avoid any and all interaction with women, other than to
insult them, torture them or even murder them. The notorious serial killer
 of women, Ted Bundy, would be a prime example of a legitimate
misogynist. Same with the legendary Jack the Ripper.

Misandrist: This is a term that is not as common or mainstream as

'misogynist,' but a misandrist is a woman (or man in some cases) who
has a passionate hatred for men. Similar to a misogynist, a misandrist
does not like men, does not trust men, and would generally like to avoid
any and all interaction with men, other than to insult them, humiliate
them, or even murder them. Anyone familiar with Valerie Solanas? If you
do not have time to read about her right now, Solanas was a hardcore
feminist who believed that all men should be murdered, and the creation
of an all-female society should take place (seriously!). Solanas even
attempted to murder famed artist Andy Warhol.

In today's society, the term misogynist is thrown around very loosely, and quite
frankly, this both disappoints me and even annoys me. What I found interesting in
doing my research of the origins of misogyny is that women ... believe it or not ...
were just as responsible for developing and maintaining misogynistic attitudes
toward women in previous centuries as men were (many married women developed
hatred toward 'women of the night,' such as call girls, prostitutes, courtesans, etc.).

Some women believe any man who harshly criticizes the behavior of a woman is a
misogynist. Not true. Being an observant and/or harsh critic does not make one a
misogynist or misandrist.

Some women believe that any man who pursues short-term and/or non-
monogamous sex (i.e., "casual" sex) instead of sex within the context of a long-term
monogamous relationship, such as marriage, is a misogynist. Not true. Just
because a man is a playboy, player, ladies' man or womanizer does not make the
term "misogynist" a valid title for his penchant for multiple sex partners.

Some women believe that if a man offers opinions and attitudes that suggest that a
woman should cater to his every desire and need is a misogynist. Not true.At
minimum, such an attitude would be representative of a man with a very spoiled ego.
At maximum, that would mean he possesses some degree of male chauvinism. A
man who always wants his way with women may be deserving of criticism, but he is
not a misogynist.

I recently interviewed a woman on my talk radio podcast program, Upfront &

Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie, and there were two or three "heated
exchanges" between my guest and I that were initially provoked by a strong
difference in opinion over some viewpoints and comments expressed. Subsequent to
the interview, I read at least a handful of comments on Facebook where women
were attempting to brand me a "misogynist," simply because I expressed some
harsh criticisms of some of my guest's opinions. Really? C'mon now. We are more
intelligent, mature and objective-minded than that, are we not?

The ironic thing about this off-base criticism is that a good part of my book, Mode
One: Let the Women Know What You're REALLY Thinking, is actually designed
to prevent misogyny. Within the contents of my book, I outline four modes of
behavior toward women, and more specifically, four modes of verbal communication.
One of the four modes, "Mode Four," represents a man who has become a bitter,
vindictive misogynist. I assert in my book that exhibiting "Mode One Behavior" will
prevent a man from exhibiting "Mode Four" Behavior.

Anyone remember the story about George Sodini? Someone once told me when I
was young that frustration that is allowed to fester turns into anger; anger that is
allowed to fester turns into bitterness; bitterness that is allowed to fester turns into
resentment; and resentment that is allowed to fester turns into hatred. George
Sodini, because he felt ignored, rejected and disrespected by women, allowed
himself to be overwhelmed with feelings of hatred toward women. Sodini truly
transitioned into the "misogynistic zone."

Some naive women think that if a man listens to too much rap and/or Hip
Hop music, this will cause him to become a misogynist. Yeah, right. Snoop
Dogg may not promote behavior that is representative of a church-going, well-
behaved "nice guy" and/or "gentleman," but he has never promoted the idea of
torturing or killing women.

Similarly, some women think that if a man watches too much internet porn and/or
stares at the naked women featured as Playboy centerfolds too much, he will
become a misogynist. Wake up people. The terms sex addict and misogynist are
not synonymous. If you have watched Californication with David Duchovnyas the
womanizing book author Hank Moody, you will see that Moody is without question
an incorrigible womanizer, but he is far from a "misogynist."

Not only are the vast majority of true misogynists not womanizers, but very few of
them are even getting laid period. This is half of what causes many men to develop
misogynistic attitudes and mindsets: Romantic and/or sexual frustration.

A possible example would be the ultra-nerdy, geeky, socially shy valedictorian who
observes many of the basketball players and football players in high school getting
all of the attention from the pretty girls while he is at home masturbating in between
working on his science project. All of the girls who he has developed a 'crush' on
tend to ignore him, tease him and humiliate him, or treat him as "just a friend."

You see readers, this is the typical M.O. of a guy who will soon develop a high
potential to become a misogynist. Or a man who has been cheated on by four out of
every five women he has been in a relationship with. Or a man who had a mother
who he perceived as extremely abusive, controlling and domineering or even highly
promiscuous and adulterous. (There was once an episode of Law & Order:
SVU where a young man became a misogynist and a serial killer because he
witnessed his mother verbally and physically abuse his more passive father)

When a man feels indefinitely ignored by women, blatantly disrespected by women,

and feels like just about every man in society is receiving more flattering attention,
more romantic attention and more sexual attention from women than himself, this is
what potentially plants the seeds for genuine misogyny.
And when the "dark side" is unleashed . . . watch out. The results are not pretty.
Just ask the families and friends of the women shot and killed by George Sodini.

True misogynists do not go on to become casual sex womanizers with harsh

criticisms toward women. True misogynists go on to become serial rapists and serial
killers of women.

And as far as I know, George Sodini never listened to Snoop.

When will we ever learn
"101": Casual sex is NOT for
everyone
If you are reading this article, there is a high percentage chance that you are familiar
with my paperback entitled Mode One: Let the Women Know What You're
REALLY Thinking. The main premise of my book is to encourage single
heterosexual men to express their romantic and/or sexual desires, interests and
intentions to [single] women in a manner that is more highly self-assured, upfront,
unapologetic and straightforwardly honest. I also have a talk radio podcast program
on the BlogTalkRadio Internet Radio Network entitled Upfront & Straightforward
with Alan Roger Currie that emphasizes the same general theme, and features
interviews and discussions with some of the best experts and authors in the field of
dating and relationships in the country.

Google Images

In just the last month, I have had two female guests attempt to engage me in a
debate while expressing challenges against the idea of upfront, straightforward
honesty (one being political commentator Sophia A. Nelson and more recently,
feminist blogger Clarisse Thorn). Nelson categorized the pursuit of casual sex as
being representative of "immaturity" and "foolishness" and remarked that even when
a man is upfront and straightforwardly honest about his desire for only casual sex,
his behavior is still not to be admired or respected (listen to her full argument here,
starting with approximately the 35:00 mark); Similarly, Thorn suggested that even if
a man is being upfront and straightforward with a woman about his desire for only
casual sex, he still could be criticized for misleading and manipulating a woman if he
knows this woman has developed emotional feelings for him during the course of
their casual sex episodes(listen to her full comments here, starting with
approximately the 81:00 mark).

Okay. Time out. Enough of this nonsense. Real life does not resemble the 1990 box-
office hit Pretty Woman.

If you are a regular reader of this column, you know that I have on at least a couple
of occasions stated that "marriage is not for everyone." Some men and women are
simply not cut out for marriage. Particularly those who love to have sex with multiple
partners. Why get married if you know at the time you become engaged that you still
possess a high degree of promiscuous tendencies?

I feel the exact same way about casual sex. Some men and women are simply not
designed to handle premarital sex and/or sex outside the context of a long-term,
emotionally profound, exclusively committed relationship. You know who you are (if
you know for a 100% fact that you do not fall into this category, you have my
permission to stop reading now).

Men: If you do not possess the bold cojones to be upfront and straightforward with
women about your desire for casual sex, then do not lay down in bed with that
woman. Quit 'pretending' to be interested in a long-term monogamous relationship
when you know you just want to tap that ass.

Women: It has been said that women are much more emotional than men when it
comes to matters of the heart, and dating and relationships. The vast majority of
women (at the risk of generalizing) simply do not do a good job of separating good
sex from feelings of love and emotional bonding (ever heard of oxytocin and
dopamine?). Quit 'pretending' to be content with casual sex when you know deep-
down you want something more serious, more long-lasting and more committed.

When it comes to this subject, I will admit: I have a few more harsh criticisms toward
the female gender than I do the male gender. Why? The vast majority of men (again,
I'm generalizing a bit) do not correlate feelings of love with enjoying good sex.
Personally, I can have sex with a woman twenty-five times or more, and never, ever
develop any 'emotional bond' with her (in fairness, so can SOME women; call girls,
prostitutes, and adult film actresses know how to separate the enjoyment of sex from
their personal feelings).

Many women foolishly think that the enjoyment, pleasure and satisfaction they can
provide to a man and his penis with their vagina is going to have this "magical power
of persuasion" that will ultimately make him back off of his original firm stance toward
only wanting casual sex, and now he will change his mind and escalate the series of
sexual interactions into something more meaningful and long-term. Here is where
you cue the sound of that television game show buzzer that sounds off when a
contestant offers the wrong answer.

Listen up ladies: If a man makes it straightforwardly clear to you that all he is looking
for is a one-night stand, weekend fling, "friends with benefits" relationship, or nine-
and-a-half-weeks of casual sex enjoyment, believe him. For many men, having a
great orgasm is like smoking a good Cuban cigar with a glass of Jack Daniels. It is
simply a stress-reliever. Nothing more, nothing less. This is why many men do not
engage in much foreplay before [casual] sex, or are not too enthusiastic about
"cuddling" after an episode of casual sex. That is too 'romantic.' Casual sex is for
men and women who simply want to "get off" and satisfy a lustful desire and urge.

Every woman who I have had casual sex with since my early-to-mid 20s, I made it
perfectly clear that I was only interested in short-term and/or non-monogamous sex.
With the women who accepted the program, and shared the same desires, interests
and objectives, we had a great time for the length of time that our interactions lasted,
which could have ranged from one night to over a year. Like many men though, I
have encountered at least a half-dozen women who would initially express that they
were "cool" with just casual sex, but a few weeks or a few months later, they started
'catching feelings' and wanted more. Can we say, 'stalkers?'

Should I be made to feel guilty because a woman wants more? No. Now realistically,
if I am having what I believe to be casual sex with a woman, and she says in the
middle of the act, "Alan, I love you...," that is the last time I am having sex with that
woman. I am not going to toy with that woman's emotions. That being said, a man
should never be criticized by a woman for 'misleading' her if he made it
unequivocally clear that he is not interested in anything 'serious.'

I'm a big NBA fan (Go Chicago Bulls!). Now we know about this year's incidents
involving LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, and Kendrick Perkins. Remember
when Allen Iverson was traded to the NBA's Denver Nuggets from
the Philadelphia 76ers? Some fans felt bad for Iverson and Perkins, while other
fans direct anger and hurt feelings toward James and Anthony, but the reality is, the
NBA is a business. You know that going in, or at least, you should know that.

Same with casual sex. Some would argue, "well your professional life is different
from your personal life," and that is true to a large extent, but the principle is the
same. If a man and a woman engage in sexual relations prior to being engaged
and/or married, there is always at least a fifty-five percent chance or greater that the
relationship is going to abruptly end without warning.

Once again, I am not a fan of men who are lying womanizers (a.k.a. "dogs"). If you
are a man, and all you want is casual sex, just say so upfront.

Motivational speaker Kirk Nugent did add this thought into the mix: "Have you ever
noticed that the women who are constantly complaining about men being 'dogs' are
the same women who wake up with a bunch of flea bites?"

Plain and simple, if you are a woman who has a hard time distinguishing between a
man wanting to exchange orgasms with you from a man wanting to express his
undying love for you and/or spend the rest of his life with you, then keep your legs
closed until you get a ring on your finger, or at least until you know you are
romantically involved with a man where emotional bonding and great sex come
together as a 'package deal.'

Otherwise, you will be clicking on THIS LINK.

Sex is sex, love is love, and the two are not synonyms.

Make wise decisions.

SlutWalks Marches: Do women's sexy
clothes invite inappropriate behavior by
men?
This Thursday (June 23, 2011), I will be having what I refer to as an 'Open
Discussion Forum' during a live episode of my talk radio podcast program
entitledUpfront & Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie. The topic of discussion
will be the recent SlutWalks Protests Marches that were prompted when a police
officer from Toronto, ON (Canada) offered comments suggesting that if women
were to stop dressing in skimpy, sexually provocative clothing, they would not find
themselves in situations with men (who they know and/or don't know) who are
looking to rape or date rape them.

Google Images

I am generally in agreement with the belief that you should never "blame the victim"
for behavior that is representative of rape, date rape, sexual assault and/or sexual
battery. Whether it is a man being sexually aggressive with a woman, another man,
or even a woman being sexually aggressive with a passive man (or underage
teenage boy), the person being violated should never shoulder any of the blame for
unexpected sexual behavior that is objectively inappropriate and/or illegal that
ultimately results in non-consensual vaginal and/or oral sex.

All that being said, I do have a few related thoughts about men and women
interacting with each other socially.

I could care less about a woman's clothing, but I have very harsh criticisms of
women who choose to behave in a very sexually provocative and highly flirtatious
manner toward men who they have no genuine interest in dating and/or engaging in
[casual] sex with. This is what most men refer to as an "Attention Whore" and/or
"C*ck Teaser."

Single heterosexual men rarely "flirt just to be flirting." 99% chance, if a man flirts
with you, he is interested in having sex with you, especially if the session of flirting is
lengthy and sexually provocative. Let's keep it real: just about any time a man makes
an effort to initiate a conversation with a woman in a non-business/non-professional
setting, he is usually looking to have sex at some point. Either long-term sex, short-
term sex, monogamous sex, or non-monogamous sex.

On the other hand, many women love to flirt with men simply because they are bored
or in a playful mood. A woman can have almost zero romantic and/or sexual interest
in a guy, but still engage in very friendly and flirtatious behavior with that same guy.
One comment I always say to my male and female friends and acquaintances:
Women value flattering attention, entertaining companionship, and a man who
becomes a dependable "listening ear" in the same manner that the vast majority of
men value hand jobs, blowjobs, and a woman who becomes a dependable "friend
with benefits."

Now if you are a stripper who is paid to work in an established stripclub, I will give
you a pass. In that situation, it is mutually agreed between the woman and the
regular clientele of the club that it is your specific job to flirt with men, tease men and
arouse men simply to get a 'rise' out of them, and motivate them to compensate you
for your enthusiastic, but disingenuous attention (e.g., lap dances). The men who
patronize these clubs know that you do not really want to date them, or exchange
orgasms with them. They are essentially paying you to tease them sexually and
make them feel desirable.

Strippers and similar types aside, no woman should be flirting heavily with a guy
simply to receive flattering compliments and a boost to her ego and self-esteem. You
want attention, buy a puppy. You want attention for your looks and body, become a
model or even a Playboy Centerfold. You want to get a rise out of men without
having to feel obligated to kiss them and/or have sex with them, become a
stripper ... or even an adult film actress (so men can watch you on video, and
masturbate while fantasizing about you). Other than entertaining those alternative
options, when it comes to actual face-to-face interactions with men that involve some
degree of flirtatiousness and physical contact, let your "yes" mean yes, and your
"no" really mean no.

The late rapper Tupac Shakur had a lyric in his popular hit, I Get Around, where he
talked about women who were groupies "tippy-toeing" the line betweenwanting to
have sex and not wanting to have sex. This is dangerous ground for a woman. If
you are not at a point where you are one-hundred percent sureyou want to have
sex ... then plain and simple, do not put a man (or yourself) in a position where he
thinks sex is a strong possibility. This goes for interactions with men you've known
for years, as well as those men who are fairly "new" aquaintances.

One movie I saw about four years ago that deals with the type of situation I'm
describing is a film entitled Havoc, starring Freddy Rodriguez (Hector), Anne
Hathaway (Allison) and Bijou Phillips (Emily). The film is about some teenagers
from the affluent area of Pacific Palisades in Los Angeles who travel over to the
more hardcore, gang-laden section of East L.A. where they cross paths with a gang
leader named Hector and his fellow gang bangers. Soon (warning: plot spoilers
ahead), even though the male teenagers who make the first visit become intimidated
by the gangster types, Allison and Emily become so intrigued by the machismo and
street attitude exhibited by Hector and his friends, that they decide to make
subsequent visits to East L.A. and party and interact with further with the Hispanic
gangsters.

During one night of partying, the gangsters talk Allison and Emily into an episode of
group sex, but after initially consenting, the fickle Emily changes her mind during the
act; The gangsters are ticked off, but they do [reluctantly] stop. Emily later tells her
upper middle class parents that she was raped by the gangsters, but Allison knows
different. She knows that even though the gangsters became reasonably aggressive,
the sex was initially consensual, and they stopped after Emily and Allison asked
them to after Emily unexpectedly changed her mind. The remainder of the story
continues from there.

I loved this film for its realism in many of the scenes, and the underlying social
messages it contained. Hathaway's character of Allison and Phillips' character of
Emily were basically bored, spoiled, rich kids who were essentially Attention Whores
and C*ck Teasers. These two, along with one or two additional girlfriends, would
even use fake identification cards to get into upscale bars and restaurants so they
could disingenuously flirt with older men to motivate the men to buy them free drinks
and/or free meals. Bottom line: Allison and Emily could talk the talk, but they didn't
want to walk the walk when things got heavy and intensely sexual.

My advice to women, and particularly young women: Don't be an "Allison" and/or

"Emily" type. In the short-term, you might enjoy all of the flattering attention and
entertaining companionship you receive from the fellas, but at some point, those
men are going to want a lot more than conversation. Not all men would stop like
those gangsters did in Havoc (I think it goes without saying that when a man's blood
rushes down from the brain area to the genitalia area, and testosterone is raging at
full throttle, rational, appropriate decisions are not always executed). For many men,
once you let them penetrate, there is no turning back until an orgasm is achieved on
their part.

Again, unless you're involved in some form of erotic role-play with a trusted partner
or spouse, let your "yes" really mean yes, and your "no" really mean no.

Tippy-toeing the line, as 2Pac said, could lead to one very bad and very regretful
experience for all involved.

CLICK HERE on Thursday, June 23, 2011 at 7:00pm PST to listen to my discussion
regarding the SlutWalk Protests and the whole concept of women being "Attention
Whores," Disingenuous Flirts and C*ck Teasers.
7 types of ladies' men who
have 'game'
In 2009, I taught a class entitled Dating for 21st Century Singles, which was my
first time teaching a class on a formal college campus (Indiana University-
Northwest). I only had two males in my class along with a number of women. I
received great feedback and high ratings from my students, and I enjoyed teaching
the class immensely. One of my two male students was actually a freelance
journalist at the time, and he even wrote a piece about me and my class in the
NW Indiana Times.

Google Images

A handful of questions I repeatedly received from my female students were, "Why do

men have such a hard time settling down? Why won't more men commit (to a long-
term monogamous relationship)? Why do all men aspire to be ladies' men and
womanizers with multiple partners?"

In order to see how these sorts of questions are comprehended in the male brain, let
me ask some women a few questions."Why do women love to shop? Why won't
women stop gossiping about other men and women's personal business? Why do
the vast majority of women aspire to have a long-term boyfriend and/or a
husband?" I see your facial expressions already. Trust me. These are the same
facial expressions many men display in response to the types of questions in the
paragraph above.

First reality check: Not "all men" are ladies' men and/or womanizers. You have a lot
of "wannabe ladies' men" and "wannabe womanizers" out here in society (I refer to
many of these men as 'hounds'), but you have to possess certain characteristics and
attributes to actually be a man who can share the company of many women in a
romantic and/or sexual manner. It is similar to the Entertainment Industry: Just about
any man or woman can become an actor or actress, but it takes special qualities to
become a television and/or feature-film "star." There are literally millions of actors
and actresses who get regular, semi-regular or occasional work, but only a small
percentage of them will ever be categorized as "stars."

Trust me ladies: A number of single heterosexual men are out here in society
searching earnestly for their "soulmate" and lifelong partner. Many of these men are
not driving a Mercedes SLK 350 Roadster or a BMW X5 ... but instead, they are
maybe driving a Toyota Prius or a Kia Sorento. Many of these men are not earning
a six-figure or seven-figure salary ... but instead, they are earning anywhere from
25k per year to maybe 50 or 60k per year. Many of these men do not look like Brad
Pitt or Boris Kodjoe ... but rather, they may be a little chubby and even have a
"semi-nerdy" look about them. If some of you women would quit being so nitpicky
about looks, education, level of career success and/or a man's financial status, there
is a greater than fifty-percent chance you would find the loyal companion of your
dreams.

Now there are a good number of men out here who do validly qualify as "ladies'
men" and top-notch womanizers. Who has true "game?" Who does not? Yours Truly
breaks down the Seven (7) Types of Men who tend to frequently share the
company of multiple women from the time they graduate from high school up until
the time they either a) retire their "womanizer membership card" and finally decide to
get married or b) retire as an 'eternal bachelor' and relegate themselves to playing
competitive games of BINGO in the local nursing home.

Note: Many men (and women) have defined these fairly subjective terms in various
ways over the last few years and decades; For this article, only my definitions are
valid!

Let's start at the bottom of the ladies' man / womanizer totem pole with #7, and
gradually move on up . . .

#7 - The Lying Womanizer ("Dog") / Cheater / Adulterer

Primary M.O. for attracting and seducing women: Will say anything that sounds
believable to women in order to get in their pants.

General comments: If there is one type of man that many women love to complain
about, it is the guy who lies his way into a number of women's pants. "I swear to God
that I am not married..." "No, I do not have a serious girlfriend..." "That woman I was
kissing? My first cousin. Not any woman I'm sleeping with..." The funny thing is,
many women fall for these lies and get played. You lie down with dogs ... you wake
up with fleas.

#6 - The Trick / Sugar Daddy / "Winer & Diner"

Primary M.O. for attracting and seducing women: Their level of disposable cash.
General comments: Some men's 'game' is not their looks, charm and/or
confidence ... but rather, it is simply their wallet. Spending money on women ...
'wining & dining' them ... buying them many materialistic gifts ... subsidizing their
rent, car note, and/or overall lifestyle ... is probably the quickest way to become a
pseudo-ladies' man and womanizer. Gold digger types will flock to you like
houseflies flock to ... well, you know what.

#5 - The Pickup Artist (PUA) / One Night Stand Seducer / The Smooth Talker

Primary M.O. for attracting and seducing women: These men know how to
combine great timing, creativity, charm and exceptional social skills as a powerful
weapon to charm women right out of their nightclub outfits and into their beds

General comments: Pickup Artists are guys who are the "Kings of the One-Night
Stand & Weekend Flings." Their main territory is nightclubs, bars, restaurants,
shopping malls, and other desirable public venues. They usually start off with witty
"chit chat" and entertaining social banter, but make no mistake ... these guys know
all of the psychological gimmicks in the book for seducing a woman into a same-day-
they-met-them one-night stand or subsequent weekend fling. These men are more
about the egotistical conquest than actual enjoyable companionship.

#4 - The Serial Monogamist / Playboy

Primary M.O. for attracting and seducing women: Great conversationalists with a
keen listening ear who have mastered the art of being private and discreet with
women, as well as very attentive to women's need for steady companionship.

General comments: The serial monogamist is the greatest enigma of the seven
major types of ladies' men and womanizers. Their key characteristic is that they very
rarely, if ever, are sleeping with two or more women at the same time. What these
'Playboys' do instead is sleep with one woman, monogamously, for a relatively short
period of time (that can range from four-to-six weeks to as long as nine months to a
year). This is the guy that always seems to have a girlfriend at social events, but you
never see that girlfriend with a ring on their finger when it's all said and done.

#3 - The Player / The Bold and Honest Womanizer

Primary M.O. for attracting and seducing women: These men let women know
upfront and straightforwardly that they are not looking for anything long-term and/or
monogamous; Women choose to either accept their program, or they move on to the
next guy. A high degree of self-confidence combined with unapologetic honesty is
their greatest tool.

General comments: Most of the men who subscribe to my "Mode One" philosophy
tend to fall into this category. These men are the antithesis of the lying womanizer /
dog / cheater types. They do not lie to women because they feel no need to. If these
men are having sex with you and your roommate, or you and your best friend, you
know it ... and you accept it. Not all men have the cojones to pull off being a true
player. I had a man recently tell me about having three cell phones to handle his
different women, but yet, referred to himself as a "player." Uhm ... no.
#2 - The Stud

Primary M.O. for attracting and seducing women: Some men pursue women for
sexual companionship, and then there are those rare men who are pursued BY
women for sexual companionship. A "stud" is in the latter group. Primary
characteristics are usually exceptional grooming, athletic physiques, and/or a boat
load of male sex appeal.

General comments: I have known at least a handful of men in my life who validly
fell into this category. These are men who could easily make a living being
agigolo and/or a male erotic escort for women with means. These men very rarely, if
ever, "chase" women. Women are usually referred to these men by other
women who have already been satisfied by these high-in-demand type womanizers.
Similar to "the player," women know these men are having sex with other women ...
but they honestly do not care. They are willing to share "the goods" with other
women ... as long as their monthly, bi-weekly or weekly time slots are booked. Half
of those custom-made Italian suits you saw in his closet? He did not purchase
himself. They were purchased for him. By very generous women full of gratitude for
being sexually satisfied over ... and over ... and over again.

#1 - The Pimp / Mack / Master Seducer

Primary M.O. for attracting and seducing women: There are some men who have
mastered the art of "psychological game" and "masterful influence" with women.
These men do not simply converse with women or seduce them. They spend days,
weeks, months and even years training the minds of women. Women reward them
with indefinite loyalty, the highest level of respect, and the nickname of "sir" and/or
"daddy."

General comments: If you think top-level pimps are thuggish men adorned in huge
fedoras with mink coats and a gun, you have been watching way too many television
shows and movies. There are two types of pimps: The hustler / "street" pimps, and
the subtle, more culturally refined, 'social pimps.' The former has a stable of
"whores" and street prostitutes who advertise their sexual companionship to men
who are naive and/or horny "tricks" and other similar types.

I am more so emphasizing the latter type. The guy who, at first glance, looks like a
normal, college-educated, well-groomed guy. On closer examination, the last thing
this guy could be categorized as is "normal" or conventional. A true, social pimp is a
'player,' a 'stud', and an informal, but wise psychologist and verbal hypnotist rolled up
into one. If there is one type of man you will rarely hear whining and complaining
about the undesirable and/or frustrating aspects of women's behavior, it is the social
pimp. Why would he ever complain? A true pimp not only can get women to have
sex with himself, but he can persuade women to have sex with his close friends,
business associates, or even a guy he just recently became acquainted with.

Some women say, "Aren't pimps guys who force women to work for them?" Again,
stop watching so many Hollywood movies. Pimps know all too well: Forced loyalty,
or loyalty gained through coercion and/or obligation is no loyalty at all. For pimps, the
door may be closed, but it is always unlocked. Women are free to go at their will.
They usually stick around. As one social pimp told me years ago, "For every three
women you meet who are hard to get along with, defiant, full of attitude, and seem
conservative and monogamous ... at least two of those three women have another
side to them that they won't reveal too quickly, or even voluntarily. You more so have
to 'bring that side out of them.' The side of them that is extremely easy to get along
with, kinky, obedient, submissive, impressionable, and looking for adventure. My life
revolves around bringing out that side in women."

Realistically? Less than 1% of the men in society fall into the category of a true pimp.
Most men are way too horny and overanxious for the quickest orgasm available to
ever maintain the mindset and demeanor of a social pimp.

Since you have all of these books like "The Millionaire Next Door," and "The
Sociopath Next Door," I think I am going to have to interview a number of men who
warrant the title of true pimp and call it "The Social Pimp Next Door."

"You mean my neighbor who just got out of prison, and owns a 1975 Cadillac
Eldorado?" Uhm ... no.

The one with the B.A. in Psychology from University of California-Berkley and an
MBA from Stanford driving the BMW X5.

Yeah ... that one.

If you are the only one left complaining,
then you just got played
If there is one thing amusing to me, it is attending various parties and social events
and listening to members of both genders point the finger of blame at the opposite
sex for all of what is wrong with today's dating and relationships arena.

Single men: "Women are such game players. They are so fickle, and most of them
are materialistic gold diggers. Women are no longer trustworthy. Women today
suck..."

Single women: "Men are such game players. They are so shallow, and most of
them are sex hungry womanizers looking to sleep with any attractive woman in a
skirt. Men are no longer chilvarous. Men today suck..."

Everyone who has read my two paperbacks, Mode One: Let the Women Know
What You're REALLY Thinking and Upfront and Straightforward: Let the
Manipulative Game Players Know What You're REALLY Thinking, knows how I
feel about dishonest behavior, disingenuous behavior, and misleading behavior. I do
not like manipulative head games at all. I am all about expressing my true desires,
interests and intentions to members of the opposite sex in a highly self-assured,
upfront, straightforwardly honest manner.

I have already expressed a lot of my thoughts about misleading, manipulative head

games in the two aforementioned books, and more thoughts in many of articles
over the last two years, but here are a few simple "basics" when it comes to game-
playing between the sexes:

Manipulative Game-Playing Fact #1: Men play games primarily to get sex; Women
play games primarily to either get sex AND something else worthwhile (e.g., financial
and non-financial favors, etc.), or to gain a new platonic male friend without engaging
in sexual relations at all.

Comment: Men rarely, if ever, engage in manipulative head games with women who
they have no romantic or sexual interest in. The less interest a man has in dating a
woman or having casual sex with a woman, the more direct and real he is going to
be with that woman.

Men generally play two variations of the same game:

Game #1: "I'm going to pretend like I want a long-term monogamous

relationship with you, but in reality, I want a short-term non-monogamous
relationship, a short-term monogamous relationship, or a long-term non-
monogamous relationship" This game by men has been going on for literally
centuries. This is the primary basis behind most men's infidelities.

Game #2: "I really want to be in a relationship with you, or at least, have casual
sex with you, but I'm going to pretend as though I am content with being your
'play brother' and dependable platonic male friend No man seeks out platonic
friendships with women who they find physically attractive and sexually appealing.
Men settle for platonic friendships. Most of men's platonic friendships are not
genuine. Many men are just waiting for their "lucky moment" with a woman. The
problem is, 99% of the time, that moment never comes once you enter into a
woman's "Friend Zone."

When women want sex, and particularly casual sex, all they have to do is generally
offer it or ask for it. So, there is really no need for most women to play games with
men in order to get short-term sex and/or non-monogamous sex.

Women primarily play games with men when they want something other than sex, or
in addition to sex. Women's game-playing is usually along the lines of, "I'm going to
give men the misleading impression that I want to have sex with them at some point
in the near future, but really I am more interested in gaining one or more of these
four things: 1) flattering attention, 2) entertaining companionship when I'm
bored, 3) to be 'wined & dined,' have gifts purchased for me, and to have my lifestyle
subsidized, and/or 4) to have a man as a dependable "listening ear" when I feel like
venting about my problems, disappointments and frustrations."

One quote I've used before in my articles, and I just posted today on Facebook, is
this: "Women value flattering attention and entertaining companionship in the same
manner that most men value hand jobs and blowjobs." You might chuckle, but based
on my many interactions with women and my many conversation with men, I would
say my lighthearted assertion is extremely valid.

The hard cold fact of the matter is, if a man is playing games with you in order to get
[casual] sex, that means he wants to enjoy sex with other women in addition to the
woman he is playing games with. If a woman is playing games with a man in order to
get attention, platonic friendship, and/or monetary favors, that means there is at least
one or two other men who she wants to exchange orgasms with much more than
than she does with the man she is playing games with.

Manipulative Game-Playing Fact #2: When you play games with others, you open
yourself up to be played.

I say in my book, Mode One, that manipulative head games are always a two-way
street. Hardly ever is game-playing one-sided. The only way you can be truly
manipulative is to open yourself up to potentially be manipulated.

Think of football. When you are on offense, you can pretend like you're about to
execute a running play when you are really about to execute a play-action fake
passing play ... but the defense can also pretend like they are about to play a soft
zone when they are really about to come full force in an all out blitz. When you hide
your true desires, interests and intentions, you generally make it much easier for
others to do the same thing.

Example: When you as a man take a woman out to dinner pretending as though that
sex is the 'last thing on your mind," but really sex is the #1 thing on your mind, don't
think you are 'getting over' on her. The truth is, that woman is also pretending that
you are going to get a passionate kiss at the end of the date, when in reality, you are
about to receive a handshake and a "Thanks for the dinner! I had a wonderful
time!" conclusive bye-bye. You were trying to play her ... but instead, you just got
played.

Manipulative Game-Playing Fact #3: As with any sort of 'games,' there is always a
winner and a loser; If you are the one left feeling angry, frustrated, bitter and
resentful ... then this means you played the game, but unfortunately, you lost the
game.

One thing I have noticed: When you avoid engaging in manipulative head games
with members of the opposite gender, you rarely indulge in a lot of "whining and
complaining" about the opposite sex. You might have a casual criticism here and
there, every now and then, but for the most part, you are fairly objective in your
evaluation of men's behavior and/or women's behavior.

When you try to "get over" on men or women, and you fail to, that is when you find
yourself at parties, and social events with friends expressing comments such as "All
[insert opposite gender here] ain't sh*t!!! Why do [insert the generalized members of
the opposite sex here] play so many damn games?!?"

Asking why men do (if you are a woman) or why women (if you are a man) play so
many games is not the right question.

The more appropriate and valid question is, why do you.

Erotic, raunchy talk about
sex is often more
controversial than the sex
itself
[Note: Most of the content in this article represent excerpts from Alan Roger Currie's
upcoming paperback, Oooooh . . . Say it Again: Mastering the Fine Art of Verbal
Seduction and Aural Sex]

Many men and women have categorized sex as a "controversial" subject to discuss.
I disagree. Ironically, it is the actual discussions about sex between men and
women that are often times more controversial than the actual act of sex itself. Even
more so, the specific concept of "erotic dirty talk" between single heterosexual men
and women.

Since becoming the author of my first paperback, Mode One: Let the Women
Know What You're REALLY Thinking, I have been engaged in more lighthearted
arguments as well as very serious, heated debates about the subject of 'sex talk'
than anything else related to the contents of my book. Very few men and women I
have conversed with have a problem with general, PG-13 type discussions about
sex, but when it comes to more erotically explicit, raunchy, XXX-rated discussions
about sex, most men and women have a lot of strong opinions.

There are some stimuli that men and women almost automatically have a positive
response to (e.g., the smell of good food in a restaurant), some stimuli that we have
a negative response to virtually every time (e.g., the smell of dog poop), and there is
that interesting category of stimuli that has the potential to createboth a positive
AND negative reaction within the course of the same conversation. The idea of
"talking dirty" would be a prime example of the latter.

I can literally name times when I have engaged a woman in a conversation that
involved a lot of hot, kinky, erotically explicit language ... and at first, many of these
women had a very negative, prudish, adverse reaction to my raunchy sex talk. Then,
either minutes later or hours later (and sometimes, even days or weeks later), I have
had a number of these same women who initially responded negatively all of the
sudden convey to me that I had them thoroughly aroused sexually.

Why the change in opinion, sometimes within the same conversation?

Two words: social programming.

You see, as human beings, there are some stimuli we naturally dislike ... and then
are other forms of stimuli we are taught to dislike. There is a big difference between
the two. Very few human beings naturally dislike sex. I would venture to say that the
vast majority of human beings walking this earth ... old, young, kinky, prudish, Black,
White, educated, uneducated, male, female, rich, poor, heterosexual, bisexual, or
homosexual ... love sex in some form to some degree.

The problem is most men and women who are deeply religious and possess very
puritanical attitudes about sex tend to believe that if sex takes place between two
people who are not married, that sex is "wrong." Some take it a step further, and
suggest that if you are not having sex for the purpose of pregnancy and
reproduction, and instead engaging in sex "just for fun," then you are a "heathen."

Consequently, this faction of society sets out to associate every possible negative
connotation they can with the idea of premarital sex, sex that is perceived as 'kinky,'
and/or promiscuous sex. They will suggest that all unwanted pregnancies are the
result of 'wild, kinky sex,' as well as point the finger at short-term non-monogamous
'casual' sex for blame as being the #1 cause of sexually transmitted diseases.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Ask these types for statistics to prove it.

Sometimes, it is not religion that is the negative influence on attitudes toward sex.

Many times it is ego. For example, some men do not want their daughters,
granddaughters, or nieces to engage in any form of sex before marriage, or sex
outside the context of a long-term "boyfriend-girlfriend" relationship. So what do
these territorial men do? They brainwash their daughters and/or other female
relatives to believe that sex (and any discussion related to sex) is "nasty," "vulgar,"
"inappropriate," "crude," "disgusting," "wrong," and to be avoided at all costs. You
see, some men want to have sex with YOUR mother, YOUR sister, and YOUR
daughter, but they do not want any man coming close to having sex with a female
relative of theirs. Can we say, hypocrisy?

Other times, it is something as simple as money. There are many women in society
who feel that female sexual companionship is something that should be sold rather
than given away for free (Attraction and Seduction expert Johnny
Soporno discussed this in a recent blog entry of his). Many women feel as though
all men should be offering either financial security in exchange for sex (i.e.,
marriage), financial favors in exchange for sex (i.e., 'wining & dining', gifts), or direct
financial compensation in exchange for sex (i.e., prostitution).

If a woman is giving sexual enjoyment, pleasure and satisfaction away for free,
Soporno argues that these women are looked upon as "traitors" to their gender.
Therefore, they must be categorized as a "whore" and/or "slut." Talk about the pot
calling the kettle black. If you do your research, you will find that it is the
aforementioned status climbing and/or gold digger types who treat their ability to
arouse, please and sexually satisfy a man as a form of 'currency' that are the true
"whores" ... not the women who are simply "sowing their wild oats."

I had one female author on my talk radio podcast program, Upfront &
Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie, suggest that I should be "slapped"
because of my confessed habit of "talking dirty" to new female acquaintances within
minutes of my first conversation with them. She later apologized and retracted her
statement as a bit harsh, but that just gives you an example of how strong some
women feel about the idea of men (and particularly, men they are having their first
conversation with) engaging them in sexually provocative conversations with women.
What was interesting, her own friend and co-author of the same book later said she
had absolutely no problem with a man being verbally erotic with a woman (even in a
first conversation) as long as the woman involved in the conversation was receptive
to it.

Even more recently, I had a sexologist ... yes, a professional sexologist ... first
accept an invitation to be interviewed on my show, but then later, renege and decline
the invitation, because she was afraid I was going to use too much profane and
erotically explicit language during our interview. Get this: This sexologist's book is
entitled The Nice Girl's Guide to Talking Dirty: Ignite Your Sex Life with
Naughty Whispers, Hot Desires, and Screams of Passion. That's right. You see
the words in the title of the book, "Talking Dirty."

I took a random survey of 100 women, and I asked them questions related to
sex/casual sex, seduction/verbal seduction, talking dirty, and what attributes in a
man get them most turned on. The most interest thing was there were very few
"unanimous" responses. For example, some women love men with nice physiques
and well endowed genitalia, while about 50-60% of women said they were totally
indifferent toward a man having a nice, muscular physique and/or a long, thick penis.

Guess what attribute topped both looks and penis size? Intelligence (nerds rejoice!).
Not so much intelligence in the "academic" sense (okay 'nerd' types ... you can stop
jumping up and down so much now), but rather, just basic street-wise, common
sense type intelligence. Personal grooming and hygiene habits were high on the list
as well. A sense of confidence and overall conversational skills ranked very high as
well.

As far as women's attitude toward having a man whispering "naughty words" in their
ear, 54% of the women surveyed said they enjoy X-rated and/or XXX-rated erotic
dirty talk from men, even new acquaintances, as long as they are attracted to those
men and interested in sharing their company to some degree. 28%said they prefer
PG-13 and/or R-rated naughty talk, and 18% said they either prefer very subtle
innuendo or no dirty talk at all. For a man that even admitted on his talk radio show
that he has enjoyed hot, kinky phone sex with an estimated 1,500 women since
roughly 1993 or 1994 (I didn't earn the nickname, "The King of Verbal Seduction" for
nothing), I must have really tapped into that "54%" demographic over the years.

I say this: I'd rather see a man with no felony criminal record talking dirty to a woman
than seeing a man take another man's life with a knife or a gun. I'd rather see a man
who has never touched drugs talking dirty to a woman than snorting crack cocaine
with naive and impressionable young adults. I'd rather see a man with no children
talking dirty to a woman than having "quiet" intercourse with multiple women, and
now this same man has four children by three women, and he does not have the
financial means to support any of them.
I love to talk dirty to women. Always have, always will. And if the prudish types don't
like it, simply add yourself to the "18%" group. That's right, the smallest group. I don't
think there is a woman in my adult history who I have ever had intercourse with
and/or exchanged oral sex pleasure with that I did not first either a) talk dirty to her
in-person and/or b) engage in at least one episode of hot, kinky phone sex prior to us
hooking up.

Now instead of some of your self-righteous prude types reading this article and
passing judgment on me, pop in that hardcore adult DVD you received in the
"discreet" mailing package," get yourself off, and go to bed. Gotta love the erotic
hypocrites and sexually duplicitous men and women that make up America.

Even the women reading this who are not so prudish are probably saying, "Alan,
you're so bad. You so nasty..."

Oooooh. Say it again.

Should men give up money
(and women, sex) on the
first date?
This past Thursday, I had the pleasure of interviewing a young, bright, articulate up-
and-coming writer by the name of Deanna Kimberly Burrell about her first novel
entitled Single Girl Summer on my talk radio podcast program, Upfront &
Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie.

Single Girl Summer centers on three close female friends from upper middle class
backgrounds, "Button," "Dawn," and "Meghan," who share their joys and frustrations
with one another as they navigate their way through today's ever-so-challenging
dating scene. Burrell surely has a knack for writing very entertaining dialogue that
will have you either shaking your head, or laughing out loud. Many female readers
might find themselves taking notes.

This article is not so much about reviewing Ms. Burrell's book (which I do
recommend), but rather, to briefly discuss an issue that was brought up during my
interview with the Northwestern alumna that seems to provoke a lot of very strong
opinions between men and women. One of my listeners, who goes by the nickname
"T-Smitty," called into my show, and in addition to asking Ms. Burrell one or two
questions and expressing a few comments, T-Smitty emphatically stated to the first-
time novelist that he prefers to 'go Dutch' on the vast majority of his dates with
women (for those who have been living in a cave the last few decades, the term 'go
Dutch' means to pay only for your own expenses during a social outing, as opposed
to covering the expenses of both you and your companion for the day). Next thing
you know, this issue became a hot button topic among my subsequent listeners who
called into the show.

Most women I know absolutely despise the idea of paying their own way on a date.
The vast majority of women I know have told me that they would rather avoid going
out with a man period than to agree to go out on a date with a man where they have
to pay for themselves. Conversely, I know many men who share similar sentiments
to T-Smitty. They do not believe in paying for women's expenses at all during a lunch
or dinner date. I have met men who are reluctant to even pay $15, $20, or $25 on
behalf of a woman's lunch or dinner meal.

Obviously, many women will quickly get annoyed and say, "Those men are cheap!!!
Shame on them!!!" Well ... not so fast ladies. Let me describe a scenario for you.

Let's say we have this nice, polite, well-mannered gentleman named "Leonard."
Leonard was brought up by his parents, and particular his mother, to always be
chivalrous toward women, and to be as pleasantly accommodating toward women as
possible. Leonard connects with women every week for breakfast, lunch, or dinner.
Okay, let's say we have Leonard down for 75 dates over the course of a year with
about 20-25 different women. Each date cost him an average of $30-$40 worth of
food, beverages and/or movie tickets. After twelve months, Leonard's minimum
expenditure would be $2,250.00; at a maximum, his expense tally for both himself
and his female companions would amount to $3,000.00. Now obviously, if Leonard is
earning a salary of say, $90,000 or more per year, $3,000.00 for lunch, dinner, and
movie dates is not much. A drop in the bucket.

On the other hand, if Leonard is only earning a modest salary of approximately

$25,000 - $40,000 per year, $3,000.00 over the course of a year suddenly becomes
a significant chunk of change.

Here is the deal: In the same way that many women want to do everything possible
to avoid being perceived as a 'ho,' a 'slut,' or an 'easy lay' as a result of agreeing to
have sex with too many men too quickly, similarly, most men do not like being
perceived as a 'chump' (i.e., an easy-to-manipulate 'nice guy' who frequently gets
taken advantage of by women) or a 'trick' (this is a pimp's term for a man who is
more than willing to exchange financial favors for sexual companionship).

For those women who might say, "I am not expecting a man to spend $50-$100 on
me per date ... but surely, he can spend $10, $15, or $20 on me ... is that asking too
much?" Let me ask you a question. What if men were to say, "I am not expecting a
woman to give me a blowjob, a handjob and engage in intercourse on each and
every date ... but surely, she can give up at least a handjob OR a blowjob ... is that
asking too much?"

What's my favorite line that has been quoted many times now by many of my loyal
and enthusiastic readers and supporters? Most women value flattering attention,
entertaining conversation, and social companionship in the same way most
men value handjobs, blowjobs, and intercourse. If women were going out on 75
dates per year, with 20-25 different men, and engaging in oral sex and/or intercourse
with each of their male companions by the end of the first, second, or third date,
there is a very good chance that at least half of her girlfriends would (lightheartedly
or seriously) label her a 'ho' or a 'slut.' Think for a few moments how that would make
you feel as a woman.

Now, pretend you are a man like Leonard, because this is exactly how men like
Leonard feel when he is labeled a "chump" or a "trick" by his male buddies when
they find out he has been 'wining and dining' multiple women, but has failed to
engage in sexual relations with hardly any of them.

My advice has never changed. I always tell men, "If all you are looking to do is have
casual sex with a woman, money should not even be an issue. Forget 'dates.' They
are a waste of time. Either you and a woman have sexual chemistry ... or you don't."
I rarely spend big bucks on dates with women who I hook up with for casual sex,
especially before we have sex.

If your interest as a man is more toward a long-term monogamous relationship, then

going out on dates here and there is cool. Even then though, only ask women out
because you genuinely want to share their company across from the lunch table or
dinner table. Do not spend money as a means of providing a woman with an "added
incentive" to drop her panties for you. If you do, you might as well hire a professional
Call Girl or Erotic Escort and guarantee yourself a pleasurable orgasm.

Now, I can almost predict that some woman who follows all of my articles is going to
write me and say, "Alan, shame on you! Surely, you are not discouraging men from
buying a woman a no-fat, no-foam Green Tea Latte at Starbucks are you? That
inexpensive drink probably cost only $5 or $6?? Men are not that cheap, are they??"

My response will be, "Are you right-handed or left-handed? I will be able to feel all
lips and tongue, right? I won't be able to feel your teeth, will I?"

Gets them riled up every time.

In a world of adulterous athletes, lifelong
bachelor Wilt Chamberlain stood tall
Quick question: Can you name a minimum of five "superstar" athletes who were
married within a year or two after they entered the ranks of professional sports that
have never been divorced, and have never been rumored to have cheated on their
wives?

Tough, isn't it.

Okay, name three superstar male athletes in the same category.

Still challenging, huh?

On one end, I don't want to stereotype every all-star caliber male athlete in major
sports who has been married as a dishonest, unfaithful, philandering husband, but in
some respects, it is hard not to. Athletes, Entertainment Industry celebrities, and
politicians are constantly in the tabloids because of rumors (most valid, some invalid)
of them cheating on their girlfriend, fiance, or wife, with the most recent being NBA
superstar Kobe Bryant.

This is why I will always have the utmost respect for athletes like NBA legend Wilt
Chamberlain. Chamberlain was a lifelong bachelor, and while many over the years
have criticized him for never choosing to marry, I am not one of those critics. I
admire the fact that Wilt was getting laid like crazy, and never once apologized for it.
Wilt was "Mode One" before I even created the term Mode One. Chamberlain lived
by his own rules, and he was authentic with the general public throughout his entire
adult life.

Women tend to ask "why do men cheat?" Really? I mean ... really? This is such a
dumb question. It's like asking "why do fat people eat ice cream and cake?" I always
say the better question is, "why do men and women with promiscuous tendencies
temporarily, or indefinitely, 'pretend' like they are monogamous?" In the world of
sports, I know exactly why.

Surveys have shown that the average American ... and particularly conservative
Christians living in the Midwest ... do not like to cheer for male athletes who have a
reputation for sleeping with dozens of different women. They like athletes who are
more like former NBA star David Robinson (known for being a devout Christian) or
current NFL star Tim Tebow (Tebow is known for kneeling down and praying after
games). Believe it or not, former NFL legend Brett Favre USED TO BE in that
category until ... well, you know what happened.

Personally, I respect men who are blatant womanizers much more than I do men
who cheat on their significant other or spouses regularly without remorse. I say if you
want to enjoy sex with multiple women, stay single. Remain a bachelor. Don't give
into the pressure to get married. Will some criticize you for your decision? Sure they
will. So what. Vegetarians will always criticize those who eat double cheeseburgers.
You make your choices and you live with them.

It takes big balls to be a true player. To look a woman directly in her eyes and say,
"I want to have sex with you .... but I am not going to be monogamous with you.
Either you are cool with that, or you are not." The 'easy' (and unethical) thing to do is
lie to that same woman, and give her the misleading impression that you are going to
be indefinitely faithful to her, when you know damn well you're planning a mnage
trois with two hotties next weekend.

Not that all women are totally innocent either. Why is it that many women wait until
you find a beautiful, sexy girlfriend or wife before they start aggressively trying to
seduce you? (Men ... be real. You know what I'm talking about) I have had more
punani thrown at me by women during those times when I was 'romantically involved'
with someone than I have during those times when I was totally single and
unattached. Some women simply want the egotistical satisfaction of knowing that
they seduced another woman's husband, fianc, or long-time boyfriend. And then
they wonder why women who are more monogamous-minded refer to their kind as
"sluts."

I had a woman once in Los Angeles give me her work number, home number AND
mobile number after I lightheartedly lied to her and told her that I was happily married
with three beautiful children. Guess what she did when I told her the truth (which was
that I have never been married, and have no children): She took back her business
card and tore it up. I had another woman tell me in a restaurant in Beverly Hills, "I
don't mess around with single men. Too much drama. I only have sex with men who
are married." She said it with confidence and pride. I could only shake my head. I
never knew that dating a single man brought more 'drama' than dating a man who is
married.

The reality is this: If you are earning a six-figure, seven-figure or eight-figure salary,
female companionship is never going to be hard to come by for a man. Add to that a
lean, muscular, athletic physique, and you're pretty much good to go. You will
probably have your pick of the litter.

Wait a minute ... you want a number of multi-million dollar endorsement deals? For a
product or service that has fans and consumers from that conservative Christian
demographic that I discussed above?

Here is the strategy: You need to find you a wife as quickly as possible. Lovely,
classy, intelligent, and educated. You know, the proverbial "trophy" wife. Makes you
look like you believe in the idea of 'love' and fairy tale romances. Then, get that
pretty wife of yours pregnant. At least once. Preferably two, three or four times. Now,
you look like a wholesome, stable family. You have to remember that your #1
passion is athletic competition ... not orgasmic pleasure with multiple women ...
right? RIGHT?!? Good deal. Now, your "monogamous faade" is ready to be
unveiled to the general public.

You are going to make SO MUCH MONEY son!!

PGA golfing legend Tiger Woods had a number of those million dollar endorsement
deals. Too many to count. The key word though is "had." As in 'past tense.'

Wealth and fame offer rewards ... one of them being hundreds of sexy female
groupies ... but a reputation for cheating has its penalties as well. Just ask Tiger.

Wilt Chamberlain never earned much money from million dollar endorsement deals.
He was too busy having sex with (a reported) 10,000 - 20,000 women. In a world of
adulterous male athletes, Chamberlain did not 'Wilt' under the pressure to present
himself as Mr. "Innocent, Wholesome, and Monogamous." Wilt kept it real with his
womanizing, which is very rare in today's climate of professional sports. (I do give
kudos to Derek Jeter of the New York Yankees ... he is not sexually duplicitous like
a lot of his professional athlete brethren)

For all of these athletes who earn their living handling balls, very few of them sure
seem to display any cojones when it comes to womanizing.

They may play the game ... but only a handful are true players.
Why all the lies and head
games? It's all about the
numbers my friend
[Note: Some of the content in this article represent excerpts from Alan Roger
Currie's latest paperback, Oooooh . . . Say it Again: Mastering the Fine Art of
Verbal Seduction and Aural Sex]

Quick question: What do you call a man or woman who possesses just about each
and every desirable attribute that you could ever want in a romantic companion?
Quick answer: The One.

Most times that I am engaged in discussions with single women about dating and
relationships, at least one of them will let me know that they are looking for "The
One." Even a few single men I have conversed with over the last two years or so
have intimated that they too are in search of "The One." Why is it so hard to find
"The One?"

Shopping for clothes would be easy if I could find my favorite dress shirts, dress
slacks, suits, socks, shoes, jackets, coats, underwear and hats all at the same store.
This is why the concept of "superstores" (think, Wal-mart, K-mart, and the like) was
first introduced. They marketed themselves as the "one stop superstore," meaning
you could find all of your shopping needs in just one store.

The reality is, most of us visit one store for one category of shopping needs, and
then we go visit another store for different categories of shopping needs. I typically
buy my shoes at one store, my dress shirts at another store, and my business suits
at yet another store. Luckily, I can purchase chicken wings andPeach Snapple at
the same grocery store.

Now, think about if a manager from one of your favorite stores said to you, "We want
you to give us your word that you will only shop at our store. If you do, and you are
faithful, you will earn numerous discounts on a wide variety of products ...
sometimes, as much as fifty-percent off the retail price. In order to earn those
discounts though, you must buy all of your products from our store, and our store
only."

Would you be faithful? Or would you "cheat" and shop at another store occasionally?

What if it were one of your favorite restaurants demanding exclusivity? XYZ

restaurant served your favorite meat entrees, but ABC restaurant served your
favorite dessert items. A manager from XYZ restaurant says, "If you promise to only
eat here, you will receive the best of customer service along with a variety of
customer discounts. But if we find out that you are eating at any other restaurant
other than here, those discounts will be eliminated, and you will be treated like any
other 'regular' customer." Would you sacrifice those great cakes and pies from ABC
restaurant for the 'average quality' desserts they have at XYZ restaurant?

What is my point? What am I getting at? A good friend of mine who lives in Las
Vegas by the name of Marlene told me something in the mid-90s that I never
forgot (speaking of Las Vegas, Yours Truly will be a featured speaker at The Direct
Approach Dating Summit - Part II to be held in Las Vegas on March 17-18, 2012.
More details to come!). We were talking about why men and women engaged in
'manipulative head games' and regularly misled each other and lied to each other.
As you know, dishonest behavior, disingenuous behavior, and duplicitous behavior is
largely emphasized to one degree or another in all three of my books, Mode
One, Upfront and Straightforward, and Oooooh ... Say it Again.

Marlene said, "Women rarely play 'head games' with you when you are their number
one choice for romantic and sexual companionship. Rarely, if ever. If you have all of
the qualities that they are looking for in a man, 99% chance, a woman is not going to
play games with you. She is going to snatch you up, or hope that you snatch her up.
Women usually only play games with you when some quality that she wants in a
man ... some very desirable attribute that she is fond of ... is missing. In other words,
you are her number two, number three, or number four choice for romantic and
sexual companionship. That is when a woman is going to play a lot of mind games
with you."

Based on my experiences and observations, I have come to find that this

assessment by my friend Marlene to be very valid. Let's start with the men.

If you remember, I wrote an article a while back about men who suffer from what is
known as "The Madonna / Whore Complex" (go back and read that articleHERE).
Many men either cannot find a woman who possesses all the desirable qualities they
want, or more importantly, do not want to find a woman with all of their preferred
characteristics in the same female body. When a man suffers from The Madonna /
Whore Complex, he does not want a woman who is "a classy lady in the streets and
a kinky freak in the sheets." Nope. He wants one woman who is a 'pure,' prudish,
"classy lady," and he wants another, totally different woman who is an erotically
uninhibited, super kinky lover.

Even with men who might not be suffering from symptoms related to The Madonna /
Whore Complex, it could be simply that they require three different women to satisfy
all of their interests and needs.

For example, you might have a guy named "Brian" who is regularly interacting with
"Linda," "Michelle," and "Tanya." Some women would say, "Oh, Brian is just
greedy ... and he probably cannot control his sexual urges. What a
womanizer..." That could be a valid criticism, but what also might be the case is a
scenario like this:

Linda is intelligent, articulate, well-read, dresses in the most elegant and

upscale manner, very outgoing and social, but she is very sexually
 conservative and prudish, not to mention very status-oriented and
materialistic

Michelle is funny, witty, charismatic, easy-to-get-along-with, can make a

homemade meal like a chef, and never nags ... but ... she is not big on
health and fitness, and does not really like to go out or socialize

Tanya is very erotically submissive, kinky, adventurous, spontaneous in

bed, and loves to give five star oral sex pleasure much more than she
loves to receive it, but intellectually, she is somewhat of an 'airhead,' and
sometimes she tends to dress like a street hooker or nightclub skank (not
to mention, she is extremely flirtatious with every man who she finds
physically attractive)

Ideally, Brian wants all three women in his life, because they each serve a specific
purpose for him. Hot, kinky sex? Tanya. Going to the formal social event sponsored
by the company that pays him a six-figure salary? Linda. Wants to just chill and
watch an NBA or NFL game without any 'drama' or nagging? Michelle.

Nine times out of ten, Linda is going to be the first one to demand at some point that
she and Brian get married. In that scenario, Tanya will become Brian's mistress and
Michelle might transition into just a 'platonic' friend or a "friend with benefits."

Trust me ... this is not just a male-oriented scenario. Over the years, I have had
many women confess and describe similar scenarios. Let's say you have "Brenda,"
and she interacts regularly, semi-regularly, or occasionally with "Andrew," "Charles,"
"David," "Michael" and "Tyrone."

Andrew has known Brenda since middle school. They are very good
friends, and Brenda shares all of her disappointments and frustrations
about dealing with men with Andrew. Deep-down, Andrew is crazy over
Brenda, but is scared to admit it. Andrew never finished college and is
always erratically employed.

Charles is any woman's "personal ego booster." Charles loves to flatter

women, including Brenda, and call her his "Queen" or "Princess." Charles
is hands down the funniest man that Brenda has ever met. Charles needs
to lose weight though. He is at least fifty pounds overweight. Never
played sports in his entire life.

David is Ivy League educated, and owns his own software engineering
company. Extremely intelligent and ambitious and earning six-figures on
his way to seven figures. David is a bit effeminate at times though, and
Brenda suspects he may be bisexual. David loves to spend money on
Brenda.

Michael has a good job, earning in the mid-to-high five figure range, and
goes to church each and every Sunday. Michael is a great guy, but is a
bit of a social fuddy-duddy. He loves to just stay at home. Michael wears
his heart on his sleeve, and is always begging Brenda to marry him.
 Tyrone is a handsome, popular, incorrigible womanizer who is not looking
to settle down anytime soon. Tyrone knows how to please and satisfy
women in bed, and produce multiple orgasms, but he is very egotistical
and again, the term 'monogamy' is not in his vocabulary

When Brenda wants to be flattered and entertained, who is she going to call?
Charles. When Brenda wants to 'vent' about why Tyrone won't settle down, who is
she going to call? Andrew. When Brenda wants to cum ... and cum ... and cum
again, who is she going to call? Tyrone. Once she knows for sure that David is on
"the down low," she will probably marry Michael, but until then, she will string
Michael along. Even if Brenda marries David or Michael, she will probably be
tempted to cheat with Tyrone every now and then.

If you are a man, I dare you to tell me that you've never met a "Brian" type, and if you
are a woman reading this, I dare you to tell me that you've never met a "Brenda"
type. I've met both types multiple times. These two types are not necessarily "bad"
people. It's just that they cannot find all of the attributes they want and qualities they
need in one body. If they do, that person would be "The One," and the idea of
marriage would not be intimidating in the least bit.

Most of us do not have the guts and boldness to say to others, "You are my number
one ... you are my number two ... and you are my number three" (One exception:
Pimps. If you do your research, you will find that many old school pimps actually
would stratify the women in their stables by telling them, "You are my #1 whore, you
are my #2 whore...," etc.). In a nutshell, it is men and women's lack of honesty
regarding their desire to maintain multiple options for romantic and sexual
companionship that ultimately leads to all of the dishonest behavior, disingenuous
behavior, and duplicitous behavior exhibited between men and women.

I know if I could find one woman who could prepare grilled chicken wings just the
way I love them, loved Peach Snapple, loved to read, loved to keep me motivated to
rise to the next level, always rooted for the Chicago Bulls, was very verbally kinky,
made me laugh and laughed at all of my jokes, loved to travel, loved movies as
much as I do, and after reading all of my books, said "Alan ... I get you! I really, really
get you!" then you would see the day when the Mode One Bachelor would become a
husband.

Until then, I tend to share the company of some women who make me laugh ....
some women who share my love for movies .... some women who enjoy XXX-rated
verbal interplay just much as I do ... and one or two women who can fix some really
great grilled chicken wangs.

If I had a gun to my head and I was forced to pick one? I can teach a woman how to
be funny, how to analyze and evaluate movies like I do, and how to be super-freaky
in bed. The ability to prepare grilled chicken wings? Jerk chicken wings at that?
Now that my friends, is a rare talent. I think I'd have to call her a "keeper."
Harsh criticisms and labels
are part of the package
when you trade sex for
money
I sometimes get teased by many of my critics, "Alan, your college degree is in
Economics ... not Psychology or Communication. Why are all of your books about
the psychology behind dating and relationships, and interpersonal communication
skills between men and women, if the primary subject you studied formally was
Economics?" You do not have to study within the four walls of an accredited college
or university to gain a true education. Life itself is your real "university." In the
University of Life, you can gain extensive knowledge and wisdom in a multiplicity of
subject areas concurrently.

Since I do have a BA in Economics, let me share some very basic and fundamental
knowledge related to the field. First off, money in itself has no value. The quicker
you learn that and understand that, the better off you will be. "Huh?" you say.
"What?" you say. "I disagree with you Alan ... money does have value!!" you say.
Money, for all practical purposes, is simply a piece of paper.

To illustrate my point, if I transported you right now to a remote island that had a
jungle with wild, dangerous animals who were ready to have the meat on your body
for breakfast, lunch, or dinner, do you think you could go over and say, "Hey Mr.
Tiger and Mr. Lion ... if I pay you each one thousand dollars, do you think you could
spare my life?" Do you think each of the animals would say, "Now, are you talking
one lump sum? Or are you talking a series of payments over say, one year? Let's
negotiate the details." Uhm ... no. That would never happen. When wild animals get
hungry, they want to eat. End of story. Animals do not value money.

Even if there were a tribe of men and women present on that island, who were highly
skilled and trained in how to avoid the animals or how to kill the animals without the
use of a gun or loaded weapon, your money would still be worthless. Why? Because
even if they understood the English language, the big question would
become: where on that remote island would they spend the money? You see, in
order for money to have any sort of value, there has to be what is known as
a market.

For those who may be a wee bit ignorant to the terms and concepts behind
economics, a market is a developed system where those selling various products,
services, and commodities can be matched up with those who are looking to buy
those same products, services, and commodities; then, once these buyers and
sellers are brought together, they agree to use a form of currency that has been
unanimously approved and mutually agreed upon by the members of that given
society (in this society, that currency would be the US Dollar). The currency is used
to represent the perceived value of those various products, services, and
commodities that are being sold and purchased.

"Alan, I thought your articles were about male-female relationships, dating, love,
and sex. What is with all of the money and economics talk?" Calm down. I am getting
to that.

The key term I used above that is more important than money is "perceived value."
Just about all of us have products, services, and commodities that we place a high
degree of value on. Some people place more value on a given item than others (a
good example would be art work and paintings; one person might willing to pay
$500,000 for a painting that another person would only be willing to pay $5,000 for)

We all value those products, services and commodities that help us with our basic
sense of survival, and our fundamental ability to function in life.

Shelter - house, apartment, or condominium.

Transportation - automobile, motorcycle, sports utility vehicle.

Food and beverages - Of course, the best example would be Hooter's chicken
wings and Peach Snapple.

Entertainment - Mp3 music files played on your iPod, cable television, movies.

Romantic and sexual companionship? Hmmmm. Okay. This is where we have to

talk.

Should men and women ever allow themselves to be in a position where they feel
obligated to pay one or more members of the opposite sex for time spent in a
romantic or sexual manner?

Let us start with the idea of women paying men for sexual companionship, since it is
less discussed and less highlighted by the media than the reverse scenario.

I remember when I was twenty-five years of age, a friend and co-worker of mine at
the time connected me with this attractive older woman who lived in an affluent
suburb of Chicago known as Hoffman Estates. She was in her mid-thirties and
recently divorced. She saw me in a photograph with my buddy, and she told my
friend that she thought I was "handsome" and "sexy." I was flattered, so I told my
friend I was game to meet her.

We met, and proceeded to have sex a few times over the course of about a month or
so, but later, I told her straightforwardly that I was losing interesting in traveling from
Northwest Indiana to Hoffman Estates each and every weekend to exchange
orgasms. At that point, to my surprise, this woman offered to pay meto continue to
visit her. She never said specifically, "I will pay you to have sex with me," but she
said, "If you continue to visit me, I will give you some money for gas, food, and just
some 'extra' cash for you to do what you want with." Translation: "Alan, I am offering
to pay you to continue to have sex with me."

Believe it or not, I actually turned down the offer. I did not want to be even tempted to
start taking advantage of this woman financially simply because she wanted to
continue having sex with me more than I wanted to continue having sex with her.
Now, before you start perceiving me as being "noble" for rejecting her generous
offer, I must confess that I have taken money from women before in exchange for
sexual satisfaction.

Surprisingly, it has been for phone sex rather than physical sex (I mentioned this fact
in my latest paperback, Oooooh ... Say it Again: Mastering the Fine Art of Verbal
Seduction and Aural Sex. Between roughly 2003 and 2007, I had probably
somewhere between 65-75 women offer to pay me to be their regular or semi-
regular phone sex partner). For example, I once had a female "client" of mine say to
me, "Alan, I really, really enjoy having phone sex with you. So much so, that I want to
have phone sex with you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday before I go to work.
I will pay you seventy-five dollars per week in exchange for your time on the phone
while I play with one of my favorite sex toys." Unlike the woman in Hoffman Estates, I
took that money. Have to love PayPal, huh?

I have never had a male friend or acquaintance who was a true "gigolo" (i.e., a
professional male prostitute/erotic escort or regularly compensated "boy toy") who
got paid 'directly' for their sexual companionship, but I have been friends with a
number of men who have been compensated 'indirectly' for sex, meaning that they
had women 'wine and dine' them, pay some of their bills, subsidize their mortgage or
rent, and buy them materialistic gifts.

I remember I had one male friend when I was attending Indiana University in
Bloomington, Indiana who had a woman who was not even his steady girlfriend buy
him a used car. I asked him, "How did you get this girl to buy you a car, and you two
are not even in a serious relationship?" He just smirked and said, "That's what
happens sometimes when you are fu**ing a woman right. When you consistently
fulfill a woman's fantasies and satisfy all of their sexual needs, you can get them to
buy you things. Even expensive things." My eyebrows were raised. I had surely been
enlightened.

Similarly, I had another friend who I used to work with in Los Angeles who said he
would get financially "rewarded" for sexually satisfying older women between the
ages of roughly 40 to 60 who were divorced or widowed (at the time, this friend was
29 and I was 32). This friend, who moonlighted as a male stripper, said a lot of the
women had some degree of wealth, and they were not the type to really do a lot of
socializing at parties and nightclubs. Some of the women would pay him cash
directly, while others would do "favors" for him, such as buy him clothes, watches,
jewelry, or help him with his rent or car note. Again, I had been enlightened.

Bottom line: Women will many times offer to pay for a man's sexual companionship,
especially if his "sexual satisfaction skill level" is anywhere from above-average to
off-the-charts excellent. Some people in society think only men pay for sex, but trust
me, there are many lonely, horny women out here in society that will pay a man for
his ability to produce a satisfying orgasm. Or two. Or three.

Now, let us discuss the far more prevalent concept of a man paying a woman for her
sexual companionship.

There is always a greater risk for a woman to exchange her sexual companionship
for money, because so many "social reputation" repercussions and consequences
come into play. "Gold Digger" would be one label that many men and women assign
to a woman who has a reputation for "selling" her romantic companionship to the
highest male bidder, while the far more undesirable terms of "slut," "tramp" or
"whore" would be three others.

[Quick note: I will be interviewing author Baje Fletcher about her book, A Gold
Digger's Guide: How to Get What You Want without Giving it Up on my talk
radio podcast program, Upfront & Straightforward with Alan Roger
Currie on Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 7:00pm PST]

What confuses me is, when a woman allows many men to have sex with her for
free, some men and other women will say, "She is a whore!" Then, when another
woman decides to make men reward her and/or compensate her in exchange for
her enthusiastic ability to please these men and satisfy them sexually, the same
group of aforementioned critics will still say, "She is a whore!" Critics: make up your
damn mind! Which of the two categories of women, if any, most validly deserves the
highly subjective and very judgmental label of "whore?" The women who have sex
with many men for free, or the women who have sex with many men for money?

I once read an interview with a very popular male celebrity who said something
interesting (I know who the celebrity is, but I don't want to name him until I find and
cite the source of his comment). He said (slightly paraphrasing), "very few men
actually pay women for sex. On paper, yes. In reality, no. There are many men who
will pay women money for many things related to sex, but not for the actual sex itself.
For example, many of the men who pay for the services of prostitutes, call girls, and
erotic escorts are married or have a steady companion. So obviously, they have
someone else who they can have sex with. What they are really paying for is the
opportunity to have discreet sex, and the opportunity to have sex with a woman
without all the normal insincere bullsh** that usually happens before sex and after
sex. They are paying for that woman to keep her mouth shut, and prevent that
woman from demanding anything from them other than the money they are willing to
pay her. That is what they are paying for."

His comments always stuck in my head. I think they are very valid to a large degree.

Based on this celebrity's comments, I am going to offer my own "Top Five reasons"
why I believe the vast majority of men will offer to pay women for their sexual
companionship:

1) To avoid boring, insincere conversations with women BEFORE sex, and/or

to avoid insincere cuddling and spooning AFTER sex.
Comment: If you have read any of my books, and particularly my first
paperback, Mode One, you learned at least one thing: Most men hate indulging in
"small talk" with women when sex is the #1 thing on their mind. I define "small talk"
as any conversation you are engage in with someone that is not really representative
of your true thoughts, your true interests, and your true desires and needs.

When a man wants to have (casual) sex with a woman, sexual pleasure is all he is
thinking about. He does not really care about that story about when you lost your
purse, and some nice old gentleman found it and returned it to you. I
mean, seriously? Or, that other story you've told a half-dozen times about your
sister's dog's leg surgery? I man, seriously? Uhm, no. That man is not thinking about
your sister's dog. He is thinking about having sex with you in the doggie-style
position. Just remember: When a man is horny and wants to have sex with you,
everything that comes out of your mouth not related to sex might as well be
expressed in a foreign language.

2) To motivate you to become his "holla back" girl or "beck and call" girl; In
other words, he wants you to cancel all of your dates and appointments with
other men, stop whatever you're doing, and be 'readily accessible' to please
him sexually at any given point in time whenever he is horny.

Comment: Men and women will pay money for a product, service or commodity that
is "readily accessible." Why do we pay for food from a movie theater, a fast food
joint, or an inexpensive restaurant, when we could easily go to our favorite local
grocery store and purchase some food items and cook ourselves? Because we want
the food to be prepared for us, and more importantly, we want the prepared entrees
to be readily accessible fairly quickly.

When a man goes as far as to offer to pay money to a woman for sex, he expects
her to become as horny as he is in a moment's notice. He does not want to hear any
of that, "Well, I have to finish cleaning my kitchen first...," or "I am not in the mood
right now. Can we wait until tomorrow or the next day?" Uhm, no. That is wife-talk.
Not I-am-paying-you-good-money-for-sex talk.

3) To motivate you to keep your big mouth shut and keep your sexual activities
with him very private and discreet

Comment: In many ways, I could actually easily rank this factor #1 instead of #3. I
had a conversation not that long ago with a woman who was a former erotic escort /
Call Girl and Los Angeles socialite. She said one time at a party she attended, she
was having a conversation with some other women, and she lightheartedly talked
about "exposing" some of her celebrity clients in a book she would write and publish.
Minutes later, she said two "mafia-looking men" pulled her to the side and said, "If I
were you, I would not say such stupid things like that. Women who can't keep their
mouth shut about who has fu**ed them are women who end up missing. Word of
advice." Now, she could have made that story up, but my gut instinct leads me to
believe her.

Did you see the film, Eyes Wide Shut? With Tom Cruise and his former
wife, Nicole Kidman? There was a subplot that centers on how many upper class,
high society types will go to great lengths to keep their kinky sexual activities private.
Translation: If you are a woman, and you have sex with a man who is not only
married, but is very powerful, visible, and wealthy, many of those men will
literally threaten your life if you decide to 'kiss and tell' their business. Over the years,
there have been literally dozens, if not hundreds of stories about someone's mistress
who all of the sudden "disappeared."

4) To motivate you to engage in group sex, or sex that will be videotaped

Comment: With factor #3, I was just discussing how many men like to keep the
details of their sex life private. Same with women. Most women do not want their
"kinky side" videotaped for someone other than their chosen lover to see. Unless, of
course, you are offering to pay them money for it.

Ever heard of Ghetto Gaggers? (I could write one whole additional article just on
this video series, but will hold off for now; I cannot include a URL link because all the
links associated with GG are XXX-rated, so you will have to Google it yourself). A
female friend first told me about GG about two years ago, because she thought it
was the most racist and misogynistic form of porn she had ever been exposed to.
And she will not get much argument out of me ... and I am erotically uninhibited.

The thing is though, the women featured in the GG series are not being "forced" to
do this. These African-American and Hispanic women (many of whom are just
'regular' women, as opposed to bona fide adult film actresses) accepted payment.
These women in GG ultimately exchange their sense of self-respect and their dignity
for money. Once you do that, most men (and even other women) are most certainly
going to brand you a "whore."

5) To motivate a woman who men perceive as "out of their league" to have sex
with them

Comment: If a man sees a woman who he thinks is really gorgeous and

extraordinarily sexy, but he feels like he is "lacking something" (e.g., not handsome
enough, not famous enough, sex skills are below average, doesn't have the right
"social connections," etc.), this is when many men will offer an "added incentive" to
these seemingly "out of reach" women to agree to have sex with them. In
"pimpology" terms, this is what is known as a "trick." A 'trick' is a man who is so
desperate and overanxious to have sex with women who possess gorgeous faces
and bodies, and who ooze with sex appeal, that they will come out of pocket for that
experience (The new urban slang term for men exhibiting this type of behavior is
"thirsty"; I had a younger fraternity brother of mine say recently,"Alan, the party was
cool, but a lot of the guys there were acting like they had never been around good-
looking, sexy women before. They were acting so thirsty. Offering to buy them drinks
all night and buy them gifts for no reason ... I was left shaking my head.")

A 'trick' should never be confused with a womanizer. True players and womanizers
do not have to offer women money and financial incentives in order to motivate
women to have sex with them. Actor Charlie Sheen, at one point in his life, was a
trick. Sheen was identified as a regular client of the former "Hollywood
Madam," Heidi Fleiss.
Speaking of Fleiss, she once was quoted as saying, "There are some men who tend
to look at all women as whores. Meaning, women who will have sex for money. And
you know what? Those men are right. All women are whores. Any woman who says
she is not a whore is simply a woman who has not had the right man offer her the
right price (for her sexual companionship). Beautiful women approach me all the time
asking me can they be one of my whores. Women should not be legally prevented
from doing what they want to do with their bodies for money. If a woman wants to be
a whore she should allowed to be a whore." And to think, many women criticize us
men for over-using the term "whore."

Here are my final thoughts to this lengthy article: If you are a woman who is into
trading your sexual companionship for money, financial favors, and materialistic
gifts ... I say, go for it (assuming you are 18 years of age or older). It is your life, and
you are responsible for your own choices and decisions. My only thing is, you must
be prepared for whatever "labels" come your way, as well as any other related
repercussions and consequences.

The reality is, if you exhibit behavior that puts you in a position where you can
charge men money for the sexual pleasure and satisfaction that you will provide to
them, more-than-likely, it is inevitable that many men and women in society who do
not approve of what you are doing are going to label you a whore, among other
things. Now, it is your right to challenge the validity of these highly subjective labels.
Some women have said to me, "Just because I have sex with a number of men who
treat me to lunch or dinner at the finest restaurants, and they frequently buy me nice,
expensive gifts does not make me a 'whore.' I am simply a woman with high
standards and good taste. I am high maintenance. I value my time, attention, and
companionship." If such thinking makes you sleep better at night, then God Bless
your innocent (naive) heart. In the real world, if you look like a duck, sound like a
duck, and walk like a duck, 99.9% chance, you are a duck. Quack Quack.

Some women will argue, "Well, why aren't men referred to as 'whores' too? Alan, you
said yourself in this very article that many men sleep with women for money ... aren't
they whores too?"

Yes. But here is the difference: men do not really get "sensitive" or "defensive" when
labeled "slut" or a "whore" in the same way most women do. I have had women call
me a "man-whore" or "male slut" at different times in my life, but those labels did not
negatively affect my ego at all.

We all know the only way to negatively affect a man's ego as it relates to sex: Tell
him he either a) sucks in bed and/or b) that he has a really small, unsatisfying penis.
One of those two comments will negatively affect an egotistically insecure man far
more than calling him a "man-whore" or "man-slut." Hell, most men would
comprehend those labels as indirect compliments. A man's ego is not tied to any
sense of erotic virtue. A man's ego is tied to another "V" ... his sense of virility.

I will end how I started: with a brief discussion about economics. At the beginning of
this article, I stated that "perceived value" is the most important factor when it comes
to buying and selling various products, services, and commodities. What most
contributes to determining the perceived value of something? Supply and
demand. The greater the demand is for a highly inaccessible commodity, the higher
price you will be able to charge for that commodity. So, if you are a woman, and you
have hundreds of men lined up for the opportunity to have sex with you ... or should I
say more appropriately, a high number of 'thirsty tricks' lined up ready to offer their
highest monetary bid for your sexual companionship ... then yes, you can charge a
"price" for your companionship A premium price. Cha ching! You go girl. Do your
thang.

But before you start thinking about those new fancy clothes you will be able to buy
soon, or that nice, new car you might be in a position to purchase in the very near
future, just remember these two words. . .

Quack Quack.
Many men and women are
often quick to 'Rush' to
judgment when assigning
labels
I have never been a fan of conservative political commentator Rush Limbaugh, so I
am enjoying the fact that this loud-mouthed clown is losing advertisers by the hour. I
almost stopped drinking my favorite beverage, Peach Snapple, when I found out
that Snapple used to be a regular sponsor of Limbaugh's talk radio show, which is
the most-listened to talk radio show in the nation. (now on the business end, I can't
'hate' on Limbaugh, who in 2008 signed an eight-year, $400 million contract to
continue doing the show, which makes him one of the highest paid talk radio show
hosts in the nation).

In case you have no idea what I am referring to, Limbaugh unfairly labeled
Georgetown Law Student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" for testifying that
contraceptives such as birth control pills should be covered by insurance in many
private health care plans.

Now some might say, "Alan ... you have no right to label Limbaugh a 'loud-mouthed
clown.' You are just as bad as Limbaugh for using such a highly subjective label to
describe behavior about the right-wing talk radio host that you personally do not care
for." You know what? This could arguably be considered a valid criticism against me.

The realistic fact of the matter is, just about all of us assign labels to others when
they exhibit behavior that we deem as "shameful," "inappropriate," "rude," "wrong,"
or simply not in line with our own personal values, ethics, moral character, or
principles on how to treat others and behave toward others.

I will tackle at least a handful of highly subjective labels that men and women tend to
use repeatedly when offering an evaluation of a man or woman's behavior as it
relates to dating, romantic relationships, and sex:

1) "Whore" or simply, "Ho": Many men and women tend to label a woman (or even
at times, a man as well) a 'whore' or 'ho' when they feel she is exhibiting sexual
behavior that is highly promiscuous. Just recently, on my talk radio podcast
program, Upfront & Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie, I had a guest by the
name of Baje Fletcher who offered the comment, "any woman who repeatedly
engages in (sexual) one-night stands with random dudes is a 'ho' in my opinion..."

I have found that if you ask twenty different men and women what their definition of a
"whore" is, you will get at least ten-to-fifteen different, specific definitions.
How does the dictionary define this term? According to Merriam-Webster's online
dictionary, a 'whore' is a man or woman who engages in sexual activity with
others in exchange for money or financial favors.

And that is exactly what I said on my talk radio show this past Thursday. When you
are exchanging sexual companionship for money and financial favors, then it is valid
for someone to refer to you as a "whore" or "ho." On the other hand, even if you are
having casual sex with multiple partners, you cannot validly be referred to as a 'ho'. If
you are not receiving any sort of financial remuneration for the sex you are engaging
in, then at worst, you are simply guilty of being "promiscuous."

2) "Slut": Many times, the term 'slut' is used interchangeably with the term
'whore'/'ho'. Many times, if you are engaging in sexual activity with two or more
partners concurrently, some men and women will say, "She is a slut!" (Men have
been referred to as 'sluts' too, but it rarely has the same effect on a man's ego)

Personally, the only time I use the term 'slut' is when a woman is either a) married, or
romantically involved, and is regularly cheating on her husband / fianc / boyfriend /
companion; or b) single, but she has sex on a regular basis with men who she
knows ahead of time are married or supposed to be romantically involved in a long-
term monogamous relationship.

How does the dictionary define this term? Well, Merriam-Webster's online
dictionary actually does define any woman who is highly promiscuous as a slut.

3) "Bitch": Usually, when a woman is perceived as "hard to get along with," both
men and women will typically refer to her as a "bitch." Men in particular will often use
this term to describe a woman who seems to be 'intentionally disrespectful' to men,
similar to a misandrist.

Personally, I try not to use that term to describe women ... at least not publicly. I find
that many women actually gain a measure of egotistical satisfaction when they are
able to get you angry and frustrated enough to refer to them as a "bitch." That is
motivation enough for me to only use that term sparingly.

In my lifetime, I have known just as many women who referred to other women as a
'bitch' as I have known men to do it, so this is not just a term used by resentful men.
Also, some men refer to other men as 'bitches' to suggest that these men are
exhibiting behavior that is overly-emotional and/or effeminate, or a man who
seemingly has no courage or backbone (see men's terms below).

How does the dictionary define this term? The primary definition of a 'bitch' is a
female dog, but as it relates to humans, Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines
a 'bitch' as a lewd or immoral woman, as well as a woman who is malicious,
spiteful, and overbearing.

Okay, the three terms above primarily related to women ... what about the labels that
are more commonly associated with men?
1) "Player": Anyone who knows me knows that this term causes me to engage in
many heated debates and arguments. Personally, I do not like nor agree with how
this term is often used by many women, and even other men. For example, I do not
consider a womanizer who lies to women repeatedly to be a "player." In my own
personal dictionary of repeatedly used subjective terminology, a lying womanizer
should be more appropriately referred to as a "Dog."

My personal definition of a "player" is a man who is a truthful womanizer ... one who
makes it clear to women that he has a desire for multiple sex partners, and has very
little if any desire for a long-term monogamous relationship with a woman. I cannot
tell you how many times I have engaged in debates on Internet message boards
regarding this term.

How does the dictionary define this term? Merriam-Webster's online dictionary
does not offer a definition of this term as it relates specifically to men, or specifically
to dating and relationships. The only general definition it offers is "one who plays
games."

I still say, and defend, that a true 'player' is a man who is upfront and straightforward
with women regarding his desire to have sex with more than one partner at a time.
As in, "playing the field." (I know I will receive dozens of notes debating me about
this)

2) "Jerk," "Dick," or "Asshole": These terms are usually used to describe men in
the same way the term "bitch" is used to describe women. Men will use this term to
describe other men who are rude, disrespectful, or simply hard to get along with.
Women will use the term for many of the same reasons, but also, many women will
use this term to describe a man who is an adulterer or a womanizer.

I have a problem when some women call a man a "jerk" simply because he has
rejected them, ignored them, or failed to commit to a monogamous relationship with
them. That is when I think the term is used very inappropriately by women. On the
other hand, if a woman refers to a man as a 'jerk,' 'dick,' or 'asshole' because he is
verbally, physically, or emotionally abusive, then I think the label is valid.

How does the dictionary define these terms? Merriam-Webster's online dictionary
defines a 'jerk' as a man or woman who is annoyingly stupid or foolish; Also, a
man or woman who is cruel, rude, and small-minded. It defines 'dick' simply as a
penis (vulgar slang definition). It defines an 'asshole' as a stupid, incompetent, or
detestable person (vulgar slang definition).

3) "Chump," "Trick," or "Sucker": I just used these terms in two of my recent

articles, as well as on my last episode of my talk radio show. Many men and women
use the term "trick" inappropriately. For example, some men and women refer to
women who are simply promiscuous as "tricks." Others refer to women who charge
money for sex (e.g., prostitutes, Call Girls, erotic escorts, etc.) as "tricks." The use of
that term is not valid in these instances.

Pimps refer to a 'trick' as a man (or in some cases, a woman) who frequently offers
women money, financial favors, or materialistic gifts in exchange for sexual
companionship. Men will refer to another man as a "chump" if that man seems to be
very naive and gullible, particularly as it relates to dealing with highly manipulative
women. For example, the type of guy that would spend hundreds of dollars on a
woman who he thinks is his celibate girlfriend, but in reality, she is buying clothes
and gifts for other men who are having sex with her. A sucker is similar to a 'chump,'
but in many ways, worse. A 'sucker' is more like a desperate doormat, who will do
anything to gain and maintain the attention and companionship of a woman, even if
that woman is playing him for all he has to offer.

How does the dictionary define these terms? The Merriam-Webster online
dictionary defines a 'chump' as someone who is easy to trick or fool; a stupid
person; A 'trick' is defined as a sexual act or favor performed by a prostitute for
money; A 'sucker' is defined as someone who is easily cheated or deceived.

4) "Punk," "Wimp," or "Bitch": As mentioned above, the term 'bitch' can often
times apply to both women AND MEN. This term usually tends to have different
connotations when it applies to men. Some men will label another man a 'bitch'
simply because they perceive him as one who 'whines and complains' too much.

Generally speaking, anytime you are a man who is perceived as having no sense of
courage or backbone, many men (and women) will label you a 'punk,' a 'wimp,' or a
'bitch.' Are you a man who allows others to intimidate you with ease? Do you allow
others to talk to you and treat you in a disrespectful manner without standing up for
yourself? Do you quickly back down from your opinions when others criticize you and
insult you? If so, then you might have had these terms assigned to you either to your
face, or behind your back.

How does the dictionary define these terms? The Merriam-Webster online
dictionary defines a 'punk' as a man who (involuntarily) becomes the homosexual
partner of a prison inmate (in other words, you went into prison a heterosexual
man, but Big Bad Roscoe made you his girlfriend by date raping you); A 'wimp' is
defined as a weak, cowardly, or ineffectual person; and finally, there is no official
definition for a 'bitch' as it relates to a lack of courage. Therefore, you can conclude
that the male version of the term 'bitch' is totally one of urban slang usage.

Final conclusion: I would simply advise all men and women to be very mindful of
the labels they use to describe others, particularly if they are using these labels in a
public forum. Again, many labels we choose to use are invalid, extremely harsh,
socially inappropriate, and highly subjective and judgmental. Most of us use a good
number of these labels when we are trying to purposely get under someone's skin,
and draw them into a heated exchange of criticisms and insults. Try not to be so
petty.

If you find yourself on the receiving end of harsh criticisms, personal insults, and
subjective labels, just remember what you were told as a child: "Sticks and stones
may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

I'm sure Ms. Fluke was reminded of this adage when Mr. Limbaugh attacked her with
his hurtful words. You have to remember that Mr. Limbaugh is many times perceived
as a fool. A jester. A comedian in entertainment who speaks at a high volume to
express his opinions.

In other words, a loud-mouthed clown.

This time, I am using that label validly. Check Merriam-Webster. They have my back.
To be (a liar), or not to be (a
liar) ... that is the question
that all men face
There are many reasons why men and women lie to each other in relation to their
romantic or sexual desires, interests and intentions. One of the most common
reasons is fear of rejection / fear of not getting what you want. All of us want
something at any given point in time. Whether it is money, employment, sex, various
material possessions, attention, flattery, respect, power, fame and popularity, or
anything else on our "bucket list" of wants and needs, we all want something.

When I was in Las Vegas a few weeks back for the Direct Dating Summit USA, I
had an interesting discussion and debate with a young gentleman who was friends
with the organizer of the event. I will call him "Andrew." Andrew said to me (slightly
paraphrasing), "Alan ... I know a little bit about your Mode One philosophy, but I have
yet to read your books. It sounds like you're all about being honest with women
about your pursuit of sex. That's cool ... but me? I have no ethics when it comes to
getting laid." I replied, "None? None at all?" Andrew: "Nope. I will lie to a woman
directly in her face to get laid. I will tell that woman I am in love with her, and that I
will be her next boyfriend, if it means getting laid. In my opinion, honesty and ethics
have no place in the pursuit of getting laid."

I went on to challenge Andrew about this. I said, "Let's hang out this afternoon, and
let me find you a fourteen-year-old girl to have sex with. That would be cool, wouldn't
it? Especially if she has a cute face and a nice figure??" Andrew frowned. He
said, "Dude, I'm not trying to commit statutory rape. That's foul." Ah ha. So Andrew
does have some ethics. I said, "Well, what about a woman who is twenty-one years
of age or older. I'll distract her while you slip a 'roofie' (i.e., date rape drug) in her
drink. Then, once that kicks in, you'll be good to go." Another frown from
Andrew. "Dude ... that's fu**ed up. I don't want to put Rohypnol in a woman's
alcoholic drink in order to seduce her. That is crazy." Ah HA! Once again, Andrew
acknowledges that he does have some degree of ethics!

By the time the conversation was over, Andrew identified a number of things he
was not willing to do in order to get a woman in bed. He was not willing to rape a
woman, date-rape a woman, commit statutory rape, or drug a woman and/or get a
woman sloppy drunk in order to seduce her into (casual) sex. As it turned out,
Andrew had some ethics. The one thing Andrew was willing to do, that I am not a fan
of, is to lie to a woman about his long-term interests and intentions.

In fairness to Andrew, he is by no means the only man I have met who had this
attitude. If you read my last article about subcommunication, many men wrote me
messages attacking my stance on being upfront and straightforwardly honest with
women about my desire for short term or non-monogamous sex.
As one reader wrote to me, "You will never end up having sex with 'quality' women if
you are straight up and honest with them about the fact that you are only interested
in short-term or non-monogamous sex. What you're promoting sounds 'noble' and
'ethical' and all, but I doubt if it is effective. In order to get (good looking) women to
have (casual) sex, you almost have to lie to them. It's a must. What you do is, you
have sex with them first ... then you tell them you're not looking for anything
serious after you two have had sex at least two or three times." That's right. The
good ol' "after-the-fact honesty" concept.

I had a situation just in the last six weeks or so that falls into this category. I met a
woman, and by the end of the first conversation, I told her that I wasn't looking for
anything long-term or monogamous. Initially, she was like, "I appreciate your
honesty." Then, I noticed that our phone conversations were slowly, but surely
starting to resemble the type of phone conversations that a 'boyfriend' and 'girlfriend'
would have. Sure enough, I finally said something.

Turns out, my new woman of interest had changed her tune. "I don't know if I could
handle just being your 'fu** buddy' for the next few weeks, knowing that you're
having sex with one or more other women. I would want our sex to be exclusive. It
doesn't have to be long-term or indefinite, but I would prefer that it be exclusive," she
said. In other words, she was game for either short-term monogamous or long-term
monogamous, but not short-term non-monogamous or long-term non-monogamous.

Now, if I had chosen to, I could have easily lied to this woman and told her that a
long-term monogamous relationship was what I was looking for. I could have
exchanged orgasms with her for a number of days, weeks or months, and simply
cheated on her if another woman flirted with me sexually, and then later created a
reason to break up with her. My thing is, why play such games? Bottom line, this
woman and I ended up having phone sex a number of times, but no actual physical
sex. You can say, my degree of honesty prevented me from "scoring." In many
men's eyes, that would cause me to "lose points."

Surely, at minimum, I could have been intentionally "ambiguous" and "vague" and
just 'played the role' for a few weeks and not really committed one way or the other.
Just went with the flow. I know some men who do this. They do not actually "lie" to
women ... but they do not really tell the truth either. They operate somewhere that is
halfway in the middle. I call that Mode Two Behavior.

Trust me when I say this ladies: It is much easier to get in a woman's pants when
you are willing to lie with your words, your actions, your demeanor and your
emotions. This is why it is so hard for many men not to cheat and stick to telling the
truth. A lot of women want to be treated "special," and made to feel like there is no
other woman on this earth as romantically and sexually desirable as themselves. If
you are a man who knows how to put on an Academy Award winning performance
with naive, inexperienced women, you are on your way to womanizing success by
being deceitful and disingenuous.

I would estimate that I could have had sex with an additional 50+ women over the
last 15-20 years if I would have chosen to be a boldface liar and a savvy
manipulator of women's emotions. Why do I choose to be so honest when I really
don't have to?

For starters, I believe in karma. I'm not a super-religious person, but I do believe in
God, and I do believe in karma. I believe, when you do wrong by others, it comes
back on you at some point in the near or distant future. I'm the type who believes,
when you have sex with a married woman ... someone is going to end up having sex
with your wife or significant other sometime soon. If you get someone's daughter
sloppy drunk and take advantage of her ... sometime soon, some guy is going to
take advantage of your mother, sister, niece or daughter. I've read too many stories
of women who wanted revenge on men who they felt played with their emotions, and
some of them went as far as to take a sharp knife and cut off their
lying, cheating companion's penis (ouch!!).

I don't toy with women's emotions because I don't like it when people lie to me,
mislead me, or generally attempt to manipulate my emotions. I feel, the more
honesty that is involved in interactions between men and women, the less head
games, the less 'drama,' and the more likely you are to remain friends when you
decide to go your separate ways.

My secondary reason, as I talk in more detail in my books, is that when you attempt
to manipulate others ... you open yourself up to be manipulated (just ask Author Baje
Fletcher! She knows how to take advantage of men who are trying to seduce her by
pretending that they are not trying to seduce her). Manipulation is rarely one-sided.
Manipulation is just about always a two-way street.

"So Alan, what you're saying is that you can get laid more by lying to women and
misleading them?" My honest answer would be "yes, you probably can."

Even though I might occasionally "lose out" on an opportunity to enjoy a pleasurable

orgasm here and there, I much prefer to lay everything out on the table, and have my
desires, interests and intentions be nothing but crystal clear in a woman's mind.
That way, she makes her own choice on what she wants to do, and how she wants
to proceed.

So yes, I have some ethics when it comes to getting laid. If you are a man reading
this, you do too. Your set of ethics might not be the same as mine, but you have
some degree of ethics, just like my new friend Andrew realized he had.

If you do happen to be that rare exception of a man who literally has no sense of
ethics, make sure that when you take your jeans off (you know, the pair with the
roofies in the front right pocket), that you protect your genitalia. A knife in an angry,
vindictive woman's hand can slice real quick.

Karma can be a bitch. Literally and figuratively speaking.

Columnist believes if
obligatory monogamy were
abolished, honesty would
flourish
Okay, if you have read three of my last four articles, you have probably noticed that
the underlying theme in all of them has been one of "upfront, straightforward
honesty" (which is why the title of my talk radio podcast program is entitled Upfront
& Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie and why the title of my second
paperback is entitled Upfront and Straightforward: Let the Manipulative Game
Players Know What You're REALLY Thinking). Well, let us make that four out of
the last five articles of mine.

I am going to take it upon myself to speak on behalf of both "The Elephant" and the
"800 lb. Gorilla" in the room that have not been allowed to speak as of yet. Here we
go . . .

I am not a fan of the concept known as 'obligatory monogamy' (known by some as

"marriage"). Never have been, and never will be. I think the desire for monogamy in
romantic and sexual relationships should be just as naturally desired as water when
you are thirsty and food when you are hungry.

Many married couples in society are not naturally monogamous. A few are. The vast
majority of married couples in society only attempt to present themselves as
monogamous because they feel obligated to be by their disingenuous marriage
vows. Some men and women only put on the public facade of being into monogamy
to appear 'normal' and avoid criticism and scrutiny. C'mon people ... marriage is on
the verge of being a JOKE in the new millennium. Get real and wake up.

If former Arkansas college football coach Bobby Petrino was naturally

monogamous with his wife, would he have attempted to "hide" an extramarital affair
with his new, young, sexy female employee, Jessica Dorrell? I think not. There are
also rumors that former Best Buy CEO Brian Dunn was engaging in "flirtatious
interactions" with a female employee as well. Would this be news if these men were
not married, and consequently, did not feel obligated to conduct themselves as
'monogamous?' (Before you start your whining and complaining against Yours Truly,
read THIS and THIS first. Thank you)

Yes, when people read your obituary, it looks good for friends and acquaintances to
see, "He leaves behind his loving wife of 42 years ..." A comment like that only
touches people's hearts if the love and monogamy between the married couple was
genuine though. If everyone at your funeral knows that you were a habitual adulterer,
then it makes that line in your obituary laughable.

Guess what many men who want to present themselves publicly as 'monogamy-
minded gentleman' have to do when they want to 'sneak' and have short-term, non-
monogamous sex with women who they have no emotional feelings for: They have
to pay for sexual companionship. At minimum, they have to pay for a lap dance.

You ever heard of a strip club nicknamed a "Pimp's Club?" Nope. Prostitutes give
pimps money. "Womanizer's Club?" Nope. True players do not exchange financial
favors for sexual companionship. "Gentlemen's Club?" Yep. Gentleman, in this
context, meaning "I will do everything possible to present myself to the general public
as a well-mannered, well-spoken, intelligent man with good morals who will always
do right by women ... but privately, behind closed doors, I will get my kinky freak on
in a way that will not cause shame or embarrassment to my wife / significant other,
our families, and our children" (yes, long definition, I know). You have to pay to
play when you want to publicly present yourself as a "wholesome, respectable
gentleman," when you are really a promiscuous 'bad boy' privately, unbeknownst to
others.

Do you think that those U.S. Secret Service Agents are "bad guys?" More-than-
likely, they are not. They love serving their country. They were just horny. Let's keep
it real. When you are on the road, and you get hungry, you order some food from
room service, right? When you are on the road and you get thirsty, you go down to
the bar in the hotel and order some drinks, right? When you are on the road, and you
get horny .... you try to connect with some prostitutes and/or Call Girls
from Cartagena de Indias ... right? RIGHT? Uh oh. No response.

I do not particularly care for "hypothetical scenarios," but will you please do me the
small favor of indulging me in just this one fictional hypothetical scenario for a few
moments? Please? Thank you. Here we go:

"USA Today, Newsweek, and CNN.com are reporting that Congress has
unanimously voted to abolish the tradition of marriage and legal monogamy in 44 of
the 50 states. Marriage will only remain legal in Alaska, Montana, Nevada, North
Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Those reported to be married in states like
California, Florida, and New York will be arrested on the spot."

What do you think would happen?

Would couples who reside in the forty-four "illegal states" who are deeply in love try
to "sneak" and find a way to be married without the police finding out? Maybe ... but I
doubt it.

All women who have engaged in the role of the "mistress" would be out of business.
Played out. (c'mon ... what sexy mistress wants to live in Montana or Wyoming? No
disrespect to those states of course). There would be no demand for them any
longer. Soon to follow ... the diminishing market prices and rates for street
prostitutes, Call Girls, and Erotic Escorts.
The cheating husband with two cell phones ... one for his wife, and one for his
"women on the side?" Gone. No need for an iPhone and a Samsung Nexus
Galaxy.

Potential challenges from female readers: "Alan, you are nuts. Insane. This
'hypothetical scenario' of yours is secular and shameful. You just want to give
men a green light to have sex with as many women as their uncontrolled
hormones desire. What about raising children with healthy attitudes
about datingand relationships? Aren't there enough single women raising
children by themselves?"

Why would you want to be legally married to a man who wants to cheat on you? Why
do you absolutely have to be married in order to maintain a monogamous
relationship? Are you saying that being married and being genuinely monogamous
are synonymous terms?

If men want to have sex with multiple women, let them do it. If they really want to do
that, do you honestly think that documented "marriage vows" are going to stop
them? Seriously? Or do you want a husband like former Lakers star and
current NBA-on-TNT analyst Shaquille O'Neal who said in his book, Shaq Uncut,
that he "cheated on his former wife in a 'respectful' manner." (What does that
really mean?)

What does your sex life, or the sex life of the father of your children, have to do with
raising healthy, well adjusted children? I have known men who were womanizers to
do an above-average to excellent job raising their sons and/or daughters. It is not
impossible.

Potential challenges from male readers: "Alan, you are obviously disillusioned. I
want that wedding ceremony. I want that ring on my wife's finger. I do not want
other men constantly approaching a woman who I am in love with, and making
attempts to try to seduce her. Her wedding ring keeps those overly-aggressive
types away. And besides ... I would never want any of my daughters having
sex with just random men when they are of adult age. I do not want my
daughters to be perceived as 'whores' and 'sluts' by men. Your assertions and
hypothetical scenario is crazy."

So, married women with wedding rings never cheat on their husbands? (cue audio
clip of hysterical laughter)

If this woman was truly in love with you, couldn't she just tell every "overly-
aggressive" man who approaches her that she is deeply in love with you?

A wedding ring can be a nice piece of jewelry, but at the end of the day, that is all it
is. It has no "magical powers of monogamous influence." Sorry.

So you still believe in the concept of shotgun weddings? So, would you be willing to
'force' your daughter to get married to a guy who has a reputation for being an
incorrigible womanizer simply because he got your daughter pregnant? What about
the fact that he had sex with your daughter's maid of honor? Okay then.
The NRA loves you boy!

Let me make it clear once again: I am not anti-monogamy. I am anti-OBLIGATORY

monogamy. Disingenuous / phony / insincere monogamy simply does not work in the
long-run. I have never seen it work in my lifetime. Lies, drama, cheating, and head
games leave many men and women emotionally traumatized for life.

If you took one thousand random single heterosexual women and one thousand
random single heterosexual men and put them on an island for nine-to-fifteen
months, with all of their needs (food, shelter, clothing, etc) taken care of, and your
only request was to have all of them leave the island as "1,000 monogamous
couples," do you think that would really happen? I mean, seriously? Not in a million
years.

About 20-25 percent of the single men on that island would end up having sex with
about 75-80% of the women. The remaining 75-80% of the men would be left
competing for the attention of the remaining 20-25% of the less desirable women.
Many of the women would probably start exploring their bi-curious fantasies. Same
with some of the men. Violence would eventually break out due to romantic and
sexual frustration. Dishonesty and head games would be rampant. Some of the more
desirable women would ask to be compensated in exchange for having sex with the
men they really do not want to have sex with.

Sound familiar? Sounds like real-life society right here, right now. I would bet money
that as I write this article, there is a handsome, popular, successful bachelor with two
male buddies who have similar appealing attributes like himself, and five or six
beautiful, sexy women in his house on the beach. Soon, all of them will be having
sex.

Somewhere across town is a guy who is not that handsome, not that popular, and
not that successful watching a new porn DVD and masturbating while fantasizing
about being multiple women. Another guy is having sex with a young, attractive
female employee and lying to his wife about it. Some woman is having sex with her
boss, or her husband's boss, and lying to her husband about it.

Those scenarios above are not fictional hypothetical scenarios. Those scenarios are
as real as life gets for many.

I say, if you are so crazy over a man or woman that you cannot even fathom the
thought of having sex with anyone else, go ahead and get engaged and get married.
I won't be mad at you. I will not criticize you. That is, if you are truly "in love." Your
desire for a monogamous relationship is real and genuine. Matter of fact, READ
THIS for extra inspiration.

Everyone else? Satisfy your horny desires. Women ... quit trying to get paid to get
laid. If you really like the guy, exchange orgasms with him for free. If you are not
really attracted to him sexually, tell him that, and leave him alone. Also, quit 'forcing'
men to become monogamous with you when you know deep-down these men have
promiscuous, womanizing tendencies. No one wins in the long-run. Men ... quit
calling yourself a "pimp" and a "player" because you have a wife or girlfriend, and
three or four women "on the side." You are neither. You are a liar, a cheat, and a
coward. You get no respect for that. If you really had cojones, each and every
woman you are having sex with would have full knowledge that you are having sex
with other women. Ask yourselves: Is losing my career and spending four and five
figures on a woman really worth a few days or a few weeks of satisfying orgasms? I
mean, really?

(A man wrote me this week, and said, "Alan, women want to be lied to. They really
do. Women will only have (casual) sex with you if you lie to them. If you are honest,
they won't." WTF? Do I want restaurants lying to me about the ingredients in my
food? NO. You offer me "soy chicken wings," I don't want them!! Does that mean I
want you to lie to me, and say the wings are made of 'real 100% chicken', but in
reality they are genetically-engineered, soy-meat fake chicken? NO.Please go to
GetAClue.com and tell them Alan Roger Currie referred you....)

For me, the only thing worse than remaining a bachelor my entire life would be to get
married to a woman who will eventually end up cheating on me behind my back, or
worse, I give in to the temptation of cheating on her on a weekly and/or monthly
basis behind her back. I'd rather shoot myself in the head. (Okay, that was a wee bit
melodramatic. Instead: "I'd rather go the rest of my life without eating chicken wings
and drinking Peach Snapple.")

My obituary? In the event that I never find my "soul mate" and get married, then I
could care less if my obituary included a sentence that reads, "... and Currie, prior to
his death, engaged in many enjoyable moments of sexual passion and pleasurable
orgasms with the women he adored, and who adored him."

And at the repast lunch or dinner, those in attendance would raise their glasses
(with Peach Snapple in them, of course) and say, "That brother ... Alan ... kept it real.
No phoniness or mincing words for him. He kept it real. God Bless his soul!"

And - before my "going home" ceremony takes place - I want it to be known that I
offer a 25% discount on all of my paperbacks to all male members of the U.S.
Secret Service. Same offer to you too Coach Petrino. Moooooooooooooooode
Ooooooooooooone.

Wake up. Get real. Keep reading my articles. Have a good week.
"Think Like A Man" allows
singles and couples to learn,
love, and laugh together
You would think someone who was briefly a stand-up comedian, and is currently the
host of a very popular talk radio podcast program that centers on dating and
relationships would choose the genre of 'romantic comedies' (the nickname in the
Entertainment Industry is "rom-com") as his favorite movie category, right? Well,
you would be wrong.

Ironically, my sentiments are almost just the opposite. At least three out of every five
rom-coms I have viewed over the years left me feeling disappointed, frustrated, and
sometimes even angry. If you are talking rom-coms where one or more of the lead
characters were Black, then that percentage probably goes up to four out of every
five films I have seen.

Generally speaking, I love romantic dramas as a group much more than I do

romantic comedies. I tend to perceive the overall attributes, quirks, actions, and
general behavior of most rom-com characters and their respective storylines to be
highly unrealistic, sappy, and/or melodramatic. The vast majority of rom-coms center
on the early stages of a man and a woman getting together, and usually close the
film with the proverbial "happy ending." Sorry readers, but I am not the biggest fan of
'happy endings.' For example, one of my favorite romantic dramas of all-time is the
low-budget independent film, Love Jones, which had neither a 'happy' ending nor a
'sad' ending. The ending was somewhere right in the middle ... more than anything,
the ending was real.

When Steve Harvey first came out with his book, Act Like a Lady, Think Like a
Man, I will confess that I offered both private and public criticisms of the book. In my
opinion, most of the generalizations about men's behavior toward women that were
valid were not new or original, and some of the advice he offered to women was just,
in my opinion, lame. For example, Harvey's "90-Day Rule" that encourages women
to avoid exchanging orgasms with a man for a minimum of ninety-days with the
objective that these women will hopefully "weed out" the men who are the more
'incorrigible womanizer' types who are only looking to just "hit it and quit it."

Bottom line of the above four paragraphs? I went into to the movie theater to see the
film adaptation of Harvey's book, Think Like a Man (TLAM), with very low
expectations. I can honestly say, I anticipated leaving the theater with a frown on my
face and ready to dissect and destroy what I felt would be another formulaic and
totally unrealistic rom-com.

I was wrong. I really enjoyed this feature-film. This movie was a delightful, pleasant
surprise. As an entertaining comedy, and particularly for Black singles, I give this
movie five out of five stars. As an infomercial for Harvey's book that is designed to
provide single women with useful advice on to get and keep a man, I would give it
maybe 2.5 stars out of 5. Overall, I would rate the film four out of five stars. Many
other critics were not so kind. Only thirty-four of sixty-nine critics on the popular
site Rotten Tomatoes gave the film a positive review.

Up to this point, the only rom-coms I have loved with a Black lead character have
been Eddie Murphy films (e.g., Boomerang, Coming to America, The Nutty
Professor) or Will Smith's Hitch. A handful of other rom-coms I loved with a
predominately African-American cast were The Best Man, Hav Plenty, I Think I
Love My Wife, and Love, Sex and Eating the Bones (here is a list I published in
September 2009 of my personal Top Ten favorite romantic comedies and dramas
that I feel men will love just as much, if not more than the women).

Based on the casting for TLAM, I did not feel that any one actor or actress had the
capability to 'carry' this film (a term used by Entertainment Industry executives to
suggest that there must be at least one "A-list superstar" in a film in order for it to be
successful at the box-office; Tyler Perry, among others, was one of the first to prove
this belief invalid). Much kudos to Casting Director Kim Hardin for putting this
ensemble together, and as much or more kudos to Director Tim Story for getting the
best performances out of each and every actor and actress he worked with in this
film.

I do not want to discuss the film in too much detail, because I do not want to give
away any "movie spoilers" for those who have yet to see the film, but to give you the
gist of the film, the movie centers on six male friends and their respective women of
interest:

Bennett a.k.a. "The Happily Married Guy" (comedian Gary Owen, who was the first
Caucasian person to host the BET Network's ComicView) They do not show
Bennett's fictional wife in the film;

Cedric a.k.a. "The Happily Divorced Guy" (Comedian Kevin Hart); Cedric is in the
midst of a divorce from his ex-wife Gail (the casting of his ex-wife was very clever
and hilarious);

Dominic a.k.a. "The Dreamer" (actor Michael Ealy) who is totally smitten with the
highly self-assured and financially self-sufficient COO Lauren (Academy Award
nominated Taraji P. Henson)

Jeremy a.k.a. "The Non-Committal Boyfriend" (actor Jerry Ferrara) who has been
dating his girlfriend Kristen (actress Gabrielle Union) for nine years, but has yet to
propose to her

Michael a.k.a. "The Mama's Boy" (actor Terrence J) who crosses paths with his
teenage crush, Candace (actress Regina Hall)

Zeke a.k.a. "The Player" (actor Romany Malco) who has an interest in the cute and
sexy Mya (actress Meagan Good)
Hart's whining and complaining character of Cedric almost single-handedly steals the
movie when it comes to non-stop comic relief. The comedian known for the mantra,
"Laugh at my Pain," displays exceptional comedic timing in this film. Being truthful,
prior to this film, I tended to find Hart's characters and humor more annoying than
genuinely funny, but he indoctrinated me into his fan club after his performance in
TLAM. I think Hart's performance in this film is going to elevate him to the next level
of comedic film actors.

The character of Bennett was not fully fleshed out, but Owens did a great job
capturing the essence of the "basic White guy who hangs out with the Bruthas."
Bennett never tries to "act Black," but he is comfortable with Black humor. I have had
a few Caucasian male friends who were "Bennett" types over the years.

The character of Michael was written in a manner that was a wee bit over-the-top for
my tastes, but that is no reflection on Terrence J's portrayal of the well-mannered
gentleman who has been raised by his overbearing, domineering single mother
(played by the always entertaining Jenifer Lewis). I have had some male friends of
mine who were "mama's boys" to a degree, but never to the extent of having their
mother join them on a lunch date or dinner date with a love interest.

I love Ferrara from the HBO comedy Entourage (where he played the character of
the loveable "Turtle"), which will go down in history as one of my favorite television
comedies of all-time. Ferrara has lost weight, and developed a more slim and lean
physique which made his pairing with the beautiful Union that much more believable.
I thought those two performers had surprisingly great chemistry between them as the
college sweethearts who have yet to walk down the altar.

I thought the role of Mya might arguably be Good's best role to date in a feature-film.
In most films I have viewed her in, I always looked at her as just mere peripheral eye
candy. In TLAM, Good was almost the perfect casting choice for her character. A
good number of women with an attractive face and curvaceous figure can relate to
the experience of many men just wanting to engage in a one-night stand or weekend
fling, only to never hear from the man again. The R&B singer Chris Brown is given
a brief cameo as a womanizing charmer who beds Mya, and then goes about his
business afterwards after running out after an erotic tryst. I thought this was a good
role for Brown to re-establish himself as a presence on the big screen, given the ups
and downs of his personal life.

I also thought Hall's character of Candace came off quite believable. Over the years,
I have known a number of women who have confessed to me that being a single
mother of one or more children made them feel egotistically insecure to one degree
or another when meeting a new man of interest. Candace displays that insecurity in
a subtle manner both in her voice and her disposition. I think all single moms viewing
this film will empathize with her challenges.

The two characters whose quirks, attributes and storylines resonated with me the
most were Ealy's 'Dreamer' character (Dominic) and Malco's 'Player' character
(Zeke). Now, if you are a loyal fan of this column of mine, you know I take the term
'player' very, very seriously. In my opinion, if you are a habitual liar with women, you
cannot truly earn the title of 'player' (see my previous article about various terms for
ladies' men and womanizers). If I were the screenwriter for this film instead of Keith
Merryman and David A. Newman, Zeke would have been labeled "The Lying
Womanizer / Dog" instead of "The Player," but I am being nitpicky with semantics
and subjective terminology.

I have always said that at any given point in time when a man meets a woman, he is
initially interested in one of four types of sexual relationships: long-term
monogamous (e.g., living together or "shacking up," marriage), long-term non-
monogamous (e.g., "friends-with-benefits," an 'open' polyamorous
relationship),short-term monogamous (e.g., your typical "boyfriend-girlfriend"
relationship that might last anywhere from a few weeks to a few years), and short-
term non-monogamous (e.g., a one-night stand, weekend fling, or any other
variation of what is known as 'casual' sex). Zeke represents men who are primarily
after the latter, while Dominic possesses the qualities and desires of a man who is
looking for a "soul mate" and lifelong partner.

Some in the media give both genders the impression that heterosexual dating and
relationships is an area of life that is far more challenging for single women than it is
for single men, and I tend to vehemently disagree with this notion (hence, why I
wrote my own dating-related books). I have known quite a few male friends in my
day who have had their hearts broken by a woman when they made the mistake of
wearing their hearts on their sleeves and placing a woman on a pedestal too quickly,
just as I have been friends with many women who have had their emotions sent into
disarray by a womanizer who they thought they could "change" into a monogamy-
minded 'boyfriend' type, but failed to.

For most of my adult life, starting with my early twenties until present day, I would
probably evaluate myself as 60% Zeke and 40% Dominic. Men will definitely relate to
Zeke because for the most part, Zeke just wants to have sex with every woman he
meets with a cute face and a sexy figure. Malco, whose character of Jay made me
laugh out loud in the box-office hit, The 40 Year Old Virgin, turned out to be an
excellent choice for the role of Zeke. Malco had the lean and muscular athletic
physique to provide eye candy for the female audience, and he uses his quick wit,
personal charisma, and confident demeanor to camouflage his character's more
emotionally vulnerable and sensitive side.

In order for a man to elevate his desires and interests from sexual enjoyment and
orgasms being "the cake" to being the "frosting on the cake," a man must begin to
see a woman as a companion who has more to offer him than just another pretty
face, firm breasts, a plump derriere, and the addictive pleasure center in between
her legs. Initially, you can tell that Zeke just wants to charm and seduce Mya as
quickly as possible. Mya, after reading Harvey's book, decides to exercise some self-
control and sexual restraint by adhering to the aforementioned '90 Day Rule.' Soon,
the audience can sense that Zeke gradually grows fond of Mya, and begins to enjoy
her company beyond a desire to seduce and conquer for self-serving gratification.

I thought of all of the four or five couples featured in the film, the ups and downs of
Dominic and Lauren were the closest to real life (I guess you have figured out by
now that I have a big issue with the concept of realism in movies ... I do not care for
'fantasy' romances or 'fairytale' romances, but if the film is a comedy, I am a bit more
lenient).

Dominic immediately looks at the very ambitious, classy and elegant Lauren as more
than pleasurable bed company for a short, specified period of time. The problem with
Lauren is that she feels as though she has yet to meet a man who is "on her level"
and lives up to the career achievements and financial success of her former
boyfriend James (another surprising and entertaining cameo appearance).

There is a romantic scene in the film involving a meticulously planned dinner date
that has the underlay of John Legend's smooth ballad Tonight (I have played this
song like twenty-five plus times since leaving the movie theater) that actually had me
smiling in my seat. Confession: women do not have a monopoly on the decades old
movie theater reaction of thinking to themselves or saying out loud "awwwwww" in
response to a scene where the romantic chemistry between two characters feeling
each other is at its highest.

I believe any man who wants to impress a woman, and wants to motivate her to be
his "lady" would want to emulate Dominic's efforts to add nice touches and 'bells and
whistles' to a morning-after-lovemaking spontaneous breakfast and the dinner
mentioned above. Given that my late mother used to refer to me as "The Dreamer"
and her older sister and my late Aunt Agnes once labeled me "The Closet
Romantic," Dominic and Lauren's scenes really left me touched (man-speak for 'left
me feeling warm and fuzzy inside').

Most men I know who are broke and unemployed would not even have the
confidence to approach a woman of Lauren's stature. If they did, at some point, their
egotistical insecurities regarding their lack of career success, erratic employment,
and lack of funds would prove to get the best of them. Similar to Hall's portrayal of
Candace and her insecurity of having a child, Ealy did an excellent job allowing his
demeanor, conversation, and facial expressions to reveal those very insecurities that
I spoke of that Dominic was trying his best to hide.

I found it clever and entertaining that Harvey, in order to balance out the fact that he
was blatantly promoting his book and personal philosophies and principles
repeatedly in this film, also took time to have the various fictional characters poke fun
at him. One female character referred to him as "that fat bald head man on the cover
of the book" and another called him "The Family Feud guy." There are parts in this
film where the dialogue, and particular Hart's streetwise borderline R-rated humor,
will have you laughing so hard that you will inevitably miss some jokes. I must see
this film a second time in order to make sure I did not miss any funny lines.

I do have three or four very minor criticisms. I think they should have had Owens
(who is married to a Black woman in real life) and his character of Bennett be seen
in one or two scenes with his wife that would show to the audience what a happy
marriage should look like. Also, they could have maybe had at least one female
character who was struggling with her weight (many women are self-conscious about
their weight in the same manner that some men who are less than six feet are ill-at-
ease about their height). I also wanted to know what type of career Zeke was
involved with that allowed him to have that funky crib he was living in. Finally, I could
not tell if these characters lived in Los Angeles (the visuals suggested so) or
Chicago (they mentioned "Rush Street" in the dialogue).

I am not sure if many singles who are not of African-American culture will be able to
fully comprehend all of the humor in the film. Some of my Caucasian friends still do
not totally "get" a lot of Black humor in the way that bruthas and sistahs do, such was
when Cedric humorously tells the bare-chested Zeke, "ni**a, put a shirt on ... it's just
us. Ain't nobody upstairs..." (I was laughing so hard at that line I started choking on
my popcorn) The cast may be predominately Black, but the messages espoused
during the film are without questions universal. I believe any single man or woman of
any race will be able to relate to the challenges of finding Ms. Right or Mr. Right in
today's ever-so-challenging dating scene.

Now, if you will excuse me, I will return right now to an episode of pleasantly
distracting daydreaming about a perfect evening of fine wine, some Char-Grilled
Chilean Sea Bass that has been marinated to perfection (You didn't think I ate
chicken wings EVERY day, did you?), and some highly appealing female
companionship in nice warm weather. On a rooftop ... with candles ... and John
Legend's "Tonight" playing in the background (over and over and over again).

Yeah. The Closet Romantic.

Knowing your role
eliminates a lot of the stress
and drama in your
relationships
Do you think the Los Angeles Lakers would have won the NBA World
Championship in 2000, 2001, and 2002 if Shaquille O'Neal would have started at
shooting guard, and Kobe Bryant was the starting center? It is possible, but I
seriously doubt it.

Speaking of the Lakers, there are some players such as Earvin "Magic"
Johnson who had the talent and versatility to play multiple positions. For example,
inGame 6 of the 1980 NBA Finals, Magic switched from his normal position of point
guard to the position of center as the Lakers wrapped up their seventh of sixteen
NBA championships.

Now, you may be thinking, "What does all of that have to do with dating advice?"

In my second paperback which I published in April 2009, Upfront and

Straightforward: Let the Manipulative Game Players Know What You're
REALLY Thinking, I offered a very strong opinion that led to me receiving a lot of
feedback from my readers, and particularly my female readers. On page 141-143, I
discussed the need for specifically defined "roles" in romantic relationships. In one
specific portion, I stated that many pimp-whore relationships have been known to
last longer with fewer problems than many husband-wife relationships or boyfriend-
girlfriend relationships. Why?

When you know your role, accept your role and adhere to the parameters of
your role, and only modify your role when absolutely necessary, you are more
likely to avoid unnecessary arguments, animosity, stress, and miscommunications
and misinterpretations.

Love pimps or hate them, pimps know their role, as do the prostitutes who work the
streets for them. Pimps treat attractive, sexy women more like employees than
romantic companions. Their job is to teach and train the women in their 'stable' how
to be profitable prostitutes. Another responsibility is to act in the role of an 'enforcer'
when a 'trick' (i.e., a financially generous man who has agreed to financially
compensate a prostitute for her sexual companionship) suddenly decides that he
does not want to pay the amount that he agreed to (think about the prostitute from
Cartagena that was initially promised to be paid $800.00 by a US Secret Service
Agent, but later was paid only $30.00). Using a sports analogy again, what if your
quarterback wanted to be the tight end, the tight end wanted to be the halfback, and
the halfback wanted to be the quarterback? Over the entire course of a game, those
modified positions just would not work. It would create chaos.

The United States Armed Forces are arguably the best example of specifically
defined roles. Everyone who serves in the nation's military has a "rank" and a "title."
Examples in the Army would be a "Command Sergeant Major" versus a "Staff
Sergeant." Each rank and title carries a set of specifically defined duties and
responsibilities, as well as a certain level of respect and authority. Corporate
America is another entity in society that usually uses titles, ranks, and specifically
defined roles. "Manager," "District Manager," and "Regional Manager" are a few
examples. "Executive Vice President," "Senior Vice President," and "Junior Vice
President" are a few more.

As far as I am concerned the title of "husband," "wife," "boyfriend," and "girlfriend"

should have a description that go above and beyond simply a label that indentifies
the gender of each partner in the relationship.

1) First step to defining your relationship: KNOW your role.

What is my role in this relationship? In what situations am I the "final decision

maker?"

I recently had a guest by the name of Charly Emery on my talk radio podcast
program, Upfront & Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie. She expressed
some of the same sentiments that I express in my book, Upfront and Straightforward:
You cannot have a relationship that is "50-50." Over the years, women will ask me,
"Why can't a relationship be 50-50?" Because it will not work. You cannot have two
mayors of a city. Someone has to be the Deputy Mayor. You cannot have two
governors of a state. Someone has to be the Lieutenant Governor. You cannot have
two Presidents of the United States. Someone has to be the Vice-President. You
cannot have two "Co-Winners" of Donald Trump's The Apprentice. Sorry Rebecca
Jarvis ... someone has to be the Runner-Up.

Some women have suggested that I am sexist and chauvinistic because I usually
say, or imply, that the man should be the more dominant partner in his relationship
with a woman of interest. Not at all. If you as a woman feel that you should be the
"final decision maker" and more dominant partner in your relationship with a man,
discuss it with your male companion, and establish that from the beginning. Most
"Alpha Male" types though are going to be resistant to that arrangement. Every
relationship has to have some type of "Yin-Yang" dynamic in it. Having two
dominant types trying to co-exist in relationship is extremely challenging, if not
virtually impossible (see "Why the on-screen chemistry between 'The Fonz' and
'Pinky Tuscadero' Failed")

2) Second step to defining your relationship: ACCEPT your role and ADHERE to the
parameters of your role.

Once you and your companion have offered descriptions and definitions of your
respective roles, then you two need to enthusiastically and mutually accept them.
Often times, this is easier said than done.
I remember when legendary NFL quarterback Joe Montana said that he would
rather leave the San Francisco 49ers organization than accept a role as the
second-string "backup" quarterback. Former NBA all-star Allen Iverson said at one
time that he would rather retire from the league than accept a role on a team as
the sixth man or bench player.

In the new millennium, some women are now earning more money in their careers
than many men are. Consequently, many women have an adverse reaction to the
idea of behaving in a deferential and/or submissive role to a male romantic
companion. I had a woman on my show just last night named Brenna Smithwho
stated during the interview and discussion that she "wears the pants" in her
relationship (I would love for her boyfriend to confirm that), which would mean that
her current romantic partner has accepted his role as the more obsequious partner in
the relationship.

Each role in a relationship should have specific boundaries that allow you to identify
when one partner has crossed out of the parameters of their role and into the
boundaries of your role. Having specific roles, and specific parameters and
boundaries that define those roles is what will lead to a significant reduction in "petty
arguments" and disagreements, and unwanted 'drama.'

3) Third and final step to defining your relationship: MODIFY your respective roles in
any instance where the circumstances of your relationship have changed
dramatically.

Returning to my comments about Magic Johnson's performance in Game 6 of the

1980 NBA Finals, that particular contest was a good example of how Johnson's role
was temporarily modified in order to meet a specific need on a specific day. As your
relationship evolves, there are going to be times when either the man or woman's
role in the relationship might need to be redefined and modified in order to enhance
the relationship.

A specific example would be a relationship where initially the man is the high earner
and "breadwinner" who has the final say-so over all major household expenses and
purchases, but then later, he unexpectedly loses his job and is unemployed for
months. Around the same time, the woman in the relationship gets a promotion, and
her salary is boosted, and now all of the sudden, she is the primary wage earner.
This situation would call for either a temporary or indefinite modification of their roles.

I remember a female friend of mine asked me a couple of years ago, "Alan ... it
seems like you have had far more 'casual sex' type relationships with women in your
(adult) life than you have (long-term) 'serious' relationships. Why do you think that
is?" I offered a number of reasons and factors to why I thought that was the case
with me, but among them, I told this friend, "With my more 'casual' relationships, the
roles in the relationship were more clearly and specifically defined. In those
relationships, I tended to lay out on the table from the get-go what I wanted, what I
was willing to give up to get what I want, what specific days I wanted companionship
and what days I did not, and so on. With my more long-term monogamous
relationships, I tended to allow the relationship to unfold in a vague and ambiguous
manner, and that has probably been my fault."
Bottom line, whenever you are on the verge of entering into a relationship
(regardless of whether it is a short-term non-monogamous, short-term monogamous,
long-term non-monogamous or long-term monogamous), you and your soon-to-be-
companion will both bring a specific set of wants, needs, preferences, and deal-
breakers into that relationship.

What you and your potential partner need to discuss is, "what role can I take that will
best accommodate my partner's set of wants, needs, and preferences, and similarly,
what role is my partner willing to accept that will allow him or her to accommodate
my particular set of wants, needs and preferences." Then, you allow the relationship
to progress from there.

Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar earned five championship rings between
the 1979-80 season and the 1987-88 season, and the primary reason is because
they both knew their specific roles.

Just remember: You cannot have two directors of a major motion picture. Debate me
all you want, but it will not work. Someone has to be the First Assistant Director.
Especially if you want the movie set to proceed without incident. The actors will only
respect taking orders from one director.

I know someone will inevitably bring up Ethan and Joel Cohen a.k.a. "The Cohen
Brothers." Yes, the brothers did both win an Oscar for Best Director for the 2007
film, No Country for Old Men.

They may have fooled you, but they did not fool me.

Just call the youngest brother "Ethan a.k.a. The 1st AD."
Host of Internet talk radio
show braces for angry
feedback from female
listeners
On May 31, 2012, I will be celebrating five years as Host of my talk radio podcast
program on the BlogTalkRadio Internet Radio Network (BTR) entitled, Upfront &
Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie. The original title of my program was
"Balls Out Talk with Mode One," and the first episode premiered on Tuesday, May
29, 2007, the day after Memorial Day of that year, at 11:30 AM PST. That initial
episode lasted thirty minutes, and I think I had about five listeners. Roughly one
month later, I changed the title to "Upfront & Straightforward," and my first episode
under the new title was on Thursday, June 28, 2007.

Now, five years later, my listenership has grown exponentially by the thousands, and
the vast majority of my interviews and discussions have ended up ranked #1 in the
category of "Romance / Dating & Relationships" on BTR. I have interviewed a
number of book authors and experts in the field of dating and relationships, sex,
seduction, and overall self-improvement on my show which airs live on Thursday
evenings at 7:00 PM PST.

If there is at least one episode in the last five years that prompted more angry,
negative feedback than positive, flattering feedback, it was my episode that aired live
on Thursday, March 4, 2010, entitled, "Premarital Promiscuity and Sexual 'Soul
Ties'". Many listeners, and more specifically many female listeners, did not take
kindly to a lot of what I had to say during that episode. I based this open forum
discussion episode on a series of YouTube videos I had viewed featuring a religious
speaker by the name of Juanita Bynum who discussed the idea of men and women
creating 'soul ties' when they engage in premarital sex and/or adulterous sex.

Now admittedly, not every single man and woman in society is a devoted Christian,
and even more so, there are many single men and women in society who are not
'religious types' at all. The specific portion of the talk radio discussion that
caused many of my female listeners to get riled up and angry was when I
emphatically stated that I felt that all women should be upfront and straightforwardly
honest about their sexual past when they are in a new long-term monogamous
relationship with a man, and they felt that relationship had a greater than fifty-percent
chance of leading to marriage.

A number of my female listeners felt, and still feel, that a woman should keep her
sexual past to herself. Many women who I am acquainted with believe that a
woman's sexual past is no one's business but her own. What I said during that
episode in March 2010 is that as long as you are having sex with another human
being - one who is capable of "kissing and telling" about their current or past sexual
activities with you - your 'personal business' is always going to be at risk to become
public knowledge.

Among other reasons, women do not like to discuss their sexual past with men
because they are very fearful of having a man 'pass judgment' on them and their
past sexual activities. My argument was, "why would you want to date and potentially
marry a man who maintains highly judgmental attitudes toward women and their
sexual activities in the first place?" A lot of women were not feelin' that question. My
belief is, total honesty ultimately attracts the man who you are really supposed to be
with. The man who will appreciate you for who you really are ... and not fall in love
with you because of who he thinks you are.

Things got even uglier after the episode. My Facebook page turned into a "war or
words" between single members of each gender. I had to unfriend two or three male
Facebook friends for going a wee bit too far in their comments, and I had four or five
female Facebook friends unfriend me because I would not delete some comments
that they felt were too harsh and mean-spirited toward women who were open about
having a promiscuous past.

Well, for better or for worse, on Thursday, May 24, 2012, I will be having another
episode that is similar in theme as that episode from March 2010. The open forum
discussion will be titled "A Woman's Sexual Past: Privacy and Discretion VS
Dishonesty and Duplicity." I will be joined by two female guest co-hosts,Renee
Moore and Rhonda James, who are the hosts of their own talk radio podcast
program on BTR titled, "Black Women Talk." Renee and Rhonda have already
expressed to me that they generally believe that a woman's sexual past is something
that should remain private.

As a reader, what do you think? Particularly, if you are a single heterosexual man
reading this article right now? Do you think that a woman's sexual past should never
be questioned? Or do you think that a woman should become an 'open book' to your
questions? Do you share details of your sexual past with women?

Let me be more specific (warning: I am about to list some very sensitive questions):

You have been dating "Mary Ann" for two years, and you are on the verge of
proposing to her. Up to this point, you have never asked her any specific questions
about her sexual past because you did not really think it was relevant. Now, your
mind has changed a bit.

As a man, are the following questions and issues below important to you, or
not really? [Note: Please take the time to write me (either in the comment section
below, or if you want more privacy, write me at BlogTalkRadio@modeone.net) I will
discuss much of the feedback I receive (not using your real names, of course) during
my live episode on Thursday, May 24th]

1) I care about the approximate number of men my new / current girlfriend has had
sex with in the past. Yes? No? To a certain degree?
2) Similar to issue #1, I care about how quickly my new / current girlfriend had sex
with most of her past sex partners (e.g., did she sleep with them on the first date?
second date? third date? did she make them wait "90 days" or more as talk radio
host and book author Steve Harvey suggested?)

3) I care about if my new / current girlfriend has had sex with other men who I am
personally acquainted with (e.g., classmates, fraternity brothers, co-workers, bosses,
subordinates, neighbors, cousins, etc.) Yes? No? To a certain degree?

4) I care whether or not my new / current girlfriend has ever been pregnant, and later
had an abortion. Yes? No? To a certain degree?

5) I care if male and female acquaintances of my new / current girlfriend have

frequently labeled her a "ho" and/or a "slut" in the past. Yes? No? To a certain
degree?

6) I care about if my new / current girlfriend has participated in one or more episodes
of bisexual sex, group sex, and/or videotaped sex. Yes? No? To a certain degree?

7) I care about if my new / current girlfriend has ever cheated on one or more of her
past boyfriends and/or committed adultery on one or more of her past husbands.
Yes? No? To a certain degree?

8) I care about when was the last date my new / current girlfriend got tested for
sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and if she has ever tested positive for one or
more STDs in her life. Yes? No? To a certain degree?

9) I care about if my new / current girlfriend was sexually abused and molested by
her father, step-father, uncle, grandfather, brother, cousin, or other family relative -
or- raped / date-raped by a former boyfriend, spouse, co-worker, or acquaintance.
Yes? No? To a certain degree?

10) I care about if my new / current girlfriend has had sex with one or more men in
the past who are convicted felons and have served time in prison. Yes? No? To a
certain degree?

Again, if you provide me with feedback to these questions, I will not use your real
first or last name during my show when I discuss the feedback I have received. Trust
me ... these questions were not just pulled out of my head or my buttocks. There are
all issues that many men have expressed to me that are important to them when it
comes to a woman who they are really into, or on the verge of getting really serious
with.

Please tune into the show on Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 7:00pm PST. And after the
episode has concluded, try to be nice (or at least, fair and objective) when you write
me your feedback notes.
Many men and women love
both "the predictable" and
"the unpredictable" in
others
I remember years ago being entertained when I read where famed old school
rapper Ice-T said that most men usually have three women in their lives: A "girlfriend
/ wifey" type, a "bitch" or "mistress" type, and a "ho-on-the-side / jump off" type. Ice-
T went on to say that a man pursues one woman for stability and peace of mind (i.e.,
the "girlfriend / wifey" type), he pursues another woman to provide excitement and
entertaining 'drama' (i.e., the 'bitch' and mistress type), and he pursues yet another
woman who he knows he can have his way with whenever he wants to relieve
stress (i.e., the obedient, submissive casual sex lover-on-the-side type).

Even more recently, I read where Chicago-bred comedian Corey Holcomb went two
steps further and said that many men interact with FIVE types of women: 1)a
girlfriend/wife type, 2) a woman who has the physical appearance of a girlfriend or
wife type, but not the pleasing personality and/or stable behavior of one, 3)an ex-
girlfriend who is really good in bed, but full of personality issues unfit for a long-term
relationship, 4) a woman who is not too attractive or is much older than him, but has
good credit and is willing to be a 'Sugar Mama' to him and offer financial favors to
him, and 5) a woman who is obedient and erotically submissive that a man will keep
around strictly for spontaneous "booty calls."

As you could expect, many of my female friends and acquaintances frowned on

these attempts by Ice-T and Corey to compartmentalize their romantic partners and
casual sex lovers. Many women think these types of categorizations are shallow,
disrespectful and inappropriate. What is interesting though is that very few of the
women I conversed with thought these categories were totally invalid and not
representative of real-life interactions (in essence, the women just hate that this is
"publicly" talked about).

Even though I think Ice-T and Corey were both being very lighthearted to a degree
with their categorizations, there is a lot of truth in what they expressed. And the key
thing is, this is not just a male-oriented phenomenon. I have known a good number
of women in my life who have maintained relationships with multiple men who served
different purposes for them and satisfied very specific needs in their life at a given
point in time.

I will take everything that Ice-T and Corey said and reduce it down to two simple
preferences that I have found that many men and women want in their social life and
personal life:
1) At least one member of the opposite sex who exhibits behavior that is responsible,
stable, predictable, and dependable;

and

2) At least one member of the opposite sex who exhibits behavior that is
adventurous, spontaneous, free-spirited, and a challenge to their ego.

I have witnessed this relationship dynamic in the lives of many of my male friends
and acquaintances, as well as the lives of many of my female friends and
acquaintances.

Let's start with the women. Many men ask me, "Alan, do women love 'nice guys' or
'bad boys'?" Realistically, that is not really an "either, or" question. The vast majority
of women love having both types in their life. I have known many women who had
a man who was the prototypical "nice guy" type as a boyfriend or husband, and then
this same woman would cheat on that guy with a man who was more of an "edgy
bad boy" type. Or, in some cases, I have known women to be in a long-term
relationship with a 'bad boy,' but have another well-mannered 'gentleman' type as
either a close male platonic friend and/or an occasional 'Sugar Daddy' type who
would offer financial favors to them on a regular or semi-regular basis.

Very rarely, if ever, will you find a situation where a woman is dating a 'bad boy,' and
cheating on him with another 'bad boy.' One man with very selfish, rebellious, and
ego-driven motivations is usually enough to provide adequate relationship drama for
any one woman. Same with a woman's relationship with 'nice guy' types. You will
rarely find a woman who is married to a 'nice guy,' and cheating on him with another
man who is also a conservative, loving, flattering and fawning nice guy.

Generally speaking, women want one guy in their life whose behavior is stable and
predictable. That is their "security." Then, many of these same women want another
man who plays the role of "Mr. Excitement." Figuratively speaking, one guy
represents "home" and the other guy represents an "island vacation" or "trip to the
amusement park with a roller coaster." With most women, usually the first guy is
a Beta male and the latter guy is an Alpha male.

The same dynamic is present with men. Rarely will you find a man who is married or
in a relationship with a woman who is conservative, loving, loyal, and
accommodating, and cheating on her with another woman with almost the exact
same personality traits and attributes. You might find that maybe 1% or 2% of the
time, but rarely. Usually, if a man is in a relationship with a woman who is quiet, he is
going to cheat on her with a woman who is talkative. If his girlfriend or spouse is
prudish, he is going to cheat on her with a woman who is ultra-kinky. If his girlfriend
or wife is materialistic, his mistress will be non-materialistic. If his wife is
domineering, independent, and defiant, his secret lover-on-the-side will be obedient,
clingy, and submissive. The list of contrasting qualities and characteristics goes on.

One psychological factor that I find to be equally irresistible to both many men and
women is that one person who we perceive as a challenge to our ego. Just about
everyone loves a challenge. This is why many of us love to engage in athletic
competition. Sports provides an athlete with a number of challenges to their ego. The
question becomes, "do you want 'Mr. Challenge' or 'Ms. Challenge' to be your steady
partner? or occasional partner?"

An athlete such as Kobe Bryant wants his teammates to be responsible,

predictable, and dependable. This is the only way a player of Kobe's stature can
function as the leader and star of the team. Does he want his opponents to be
predictable? No. That would take away the 'challenge to his ego' dynamic. Star
athletes like Kobe live for monumental challenges. LeBron, Kevin Durant, Tim
Duncan, and Kevin Garnett are Kobe's "challenges." He wants those men to be
"unpredictable" in what they are going to do on the court, so he can experience the
challenge of trying to figure out their next move on offense and defense.

(Warning: Movie spoiler below)

If you watched the movie Red Shoe Diaries, starring David Duchovny, Brigitte
Bako, and Billy Wirth, you saw this relationship triangle I describe fully at work(this
film was written by one of my all-time favorite screenwriters, Zalman King, and later
turned into a long-running television series on Showtime). Alex (Bako) is a woman
who is married to Jake Winters (Duchovny), a man who is your proverbial "nice guy"
type. Then, Alex crosses paths with this very 'rough-around-the-edges bad boy' type
named Thomas (Wirth). By their second or third interaction, Thomas has Alex's
panties off, and they are doing the nasty in hot, kinky fashion.

In addition to Alex blatantly committing adultery, the bigger problem that develops is
that Alex does not really want to "choose" between Jake and Thomas. Alex finds that
she wants the companionship of both the "nice guy" and the "bad boy." Alex does
not want to select one over the other. Alex feels like both men offer her behavioral
attributes that she enjoys.

This scenario is not at all a purely fictional one. Again, I have seen women in real life
respond just like Alex. Why? Because both types of men have pros and cons.

The benefits of the "nice guy": If you are a woman reading this, the 'nice guy' is
going to generally adhere to your "program." He is going to frequently say things to
boost your self-esteem. If you have children, he is probably going to be a great father
to your kids. He is going to remain employed, and pay his (and your) bills on time.
He is very monogamy-minded, so there is a low-chance of him cheating on you.

The drawbacks to the "nice guy": Plain and simple, the nice guy does not provide
a challenge to your ego. His behavior is so predictable, that it can become
excruciatingly boring. His ability to satisfy your sexual desires, needs and fantasies
are average, at best. You can manipulate him at will. He is known to exhibit behavior
that is "passive-aggressive" when he gets frustrated.

The benefits of the "bad boy": You cannot get this man to act the way you want
him to, which causes your mind to perceive him as a major challenge to your ego.
This man does what he wants, when he wants, and does not care if you have
nitpicky criticisms and complaints against any aspect of his personality or behavior.
He speaks his mind, even if it means hurting your feelings or bruising your ego. On
the surface, you hate this about him. Deep-down, you love this about him. His
behavior provides excitement and the type of 'drama' that you crave at your core. All
of this combined makes you want to jump his bones, and he knows you like to reveal
your more "raw and nasty" side in bed.

The drawbacks of the "bad boy": Many 'bad boy' types do not make good long-
term boyfriends or husbands. They are usually promiscuous, and even if they try to
be monogamous indefinitely, they tend to be erratically employed and financially
irresponsible. If you decide to engage in a long-term monogamous relationship with
a bad boy type, be warned that you will more-than-likely be cheated on, and you will
be taking care of most of the finances.

If you want to read the same type of analysis for men's choices in companions,
please read this article and this article. Basically, there are the same sort of
'benefits' and 'drawbacks' for men's choices in women as women's choices in men.

Have I had women in my life that fell into Ice-T's categories and/or Corey's
categories? At different times in my life, yes. I am not a "cheater" type when I am in
relationship, but when I have been single, I have definitely been known to maintain
relationships with two or more women who possessed varied traits and attributes.

Some men and women, as they mature and evolve, tend to grow out of the need for
a "challenge to their ego." This is why many women who have profiles with online
matchmaking services such as Match.com will often say, "I am in my mid-thirties,
and I have had fun with my share of 'bad boys'. Now, I am looking for a 'good man'
who is husband material. One I can depend on, and who will make me feel secure."

Translation: I'm tired of being treated like a 'booty call' by 'bad boy' types, and now I
want to be treated like 'wifey' material by a 'nice guy' type.

The question is ... are you truly "wifey" material? If you are, that can be a good
thing . . .

. . . unless you run into a 'bad boy' who is good at presenting himself as a 'nice guy'
(i.e., the classic "wolf in sheep's clothing" scenario). Then, let the game-playing
begin.

Good luck.
I just wanna poke you:
dating and casual sex in the
era of Facebook and Twitter
Thank goodness I did not invest any money in Facebook stock shares. I feel sorry
for those who did. In case you have been hiding in a cave for the last few
weeks, Facebook finally went public, and had an initial public offering (IPO) of
$38.23 per share. As of Monday, June 4, 2012, the Facebook stock shares closed at
a price of $26.90. Ouch. I sure hope Mark Zuckerberg had one heck of a
honeymoon.

I have a college degree in Economics, but I do not need to refer to the knowledge
that led to this degree to figure out what went wrong. Nutshell? Men and women do
not log into Facebook to determine what products and services to buy. The
advertising on the right panel of my Facebook page is probably more annoying to me
than it is useful and beneficial (and on your mobile phones and smartphones, there
is no advertising ... and that is why the stock value has plummeted).

Men and women log into Facebook to receive attention from others, give attention to
others, offer pseudo-intellectual and sometimes profound quotes of wisdom about
improving the quality of your life, and generally keep up with the life activities and
social activities of many of their friends and acquaintances.

Another social networking site that is very popular is Twitter. Twitter is similar, but
yet different than Facebook. Twitter is more celebrity-friendly because with Twitter, if
someone follows you, you are not obligated to open the door to a two-way mutual
interaction with them. For example, on Twitter, I follow a number of people who do
not follow me and vice versa. On Facebook, I have 5,000+ friends who follow me,
and in order for them to maintain a "Facebook friendship" with me, I have to become
'friends' with them as well (although, now Facebook has a 'subscriber' feature that
allows people to subscribe to your status updates without you becoming FB friends
with them).

If there is at least one area of life that I think both Facebook and Twitter have had
and/or will have a major impact in men and women's lives, it is their overall social
life, love life and sex life.

Why? Once you decide to become an active member of Facebook or Twitter, you
are essentially volunteering to make your private life public, to one degree or
another. If you are married or involved in a long-term relationship, most of your
Facebook friends will be able to identify the "good periods" and "bad periods" of your
relationship if you are a man or woman who posts quite often (trust me on that ...
back in the latter half of 2009 and the first half of 2010, I was involved in a long-
distance relationship that became much more public than I wanted it to be).
Even more affected than a long-term monogamous relationship is men and women's
more 'casual' sexual interactions. Unless all of your casual sex partners are
committed to being private and discreet, you run a great chance of being "outed" if
you attempt to lie and engage in manipulative head games with members of the
opposite sex. Especially you horny men who just want to "poke" as many single
women as you possibly can (believe it or not, when I was in college, many of my
fraternity brothers actually used to use the term 'poke' to describe having sex with a
woman, particularly in a short-term, non-monogamous casual manner; Now,
Facebook CEO and Founder Zuckerberg uses the term 'poke' in a much more
lighthearted and mainstream manner).

Are you a man who currently is sleeping with three different women, and each of
those women are under the misguided belief that they are your "only special
woman?" I hope you are not an active member of Facebook or Twitter. You are
going to get called out. Big time (I have witnessed 'drama' like this happen
regularly ... sometimes to the point where a man ends up have to close out and
delete his Facebook page).

Are you a woman who currently is telling one gentleman that you are practicing
celibacy, but on the "quiet tip," you are creeping around town hooking up for erotic
trysts with two or three other guys? I hope you are not on Facebook, and I hope the
men you are exchanging orgasms with are not actively posting on there either. Trust
me ... at some point in time, your 'game' of inconsistent behavior is going to crash.

When I was in high school and college, I generally only thought about connecting
with women in my same city or state. Look what the Internet and later, Facebook and
Twitter have done. The world is your oyster now. Not only are men in New York City
connecting with women in Los Angeles and Miami, but they are connecting with
women in Montreal and Toronto as well. With Facebook and Twitter, you are now
exposed to so many potential opportunities for casual hook ups in a short period of
time, it's ridiculous. Who needs a nightclub? Facebook is almost akin to an "online
nightclub" in its own right.

If you are upfront and straightforwardly honest about your desire to maintain
multiple sex partners, then go ahead and create discussion threads on Facebook
and tweet your heart out. On the other hand, if you are a habitual liar and
manipulative game player, then you are best be warned to watch yourself. Those lies
and head games with various men or women in your life are going to inevitably catch
up with you.

And when that day happens, your appeal as a desirable romantic and sexual
companion is going to drop significantly.

Just like one thousand shares of Facebook stock did in less than a month.

Post and tweet responsibly folks.

ABC's 'The View' Co-Host
Whoopi Goldberg:
"Sometimes, you just want
to get laid"
I try my best to always avoid being perceived as a "whiner" or "complainer,"
particularly publicly, but anyone who is familiar with me knows that I have often
complained that too many factions in society have too frequently and unfairly given
the idea of short-term non-monogamous sex a bad rap. Well, this morning a major
celebrity came to my rescue. And a female celebrity at that!

I am not a regular watcher of ABC Network's The View, but I happen to catch
today's episode because my Gary, Indiana hometown favorites, The Jacksons,
were going to be interviewed to discuss their current "Unity Tour" (I saw them live in
concert one week ago in Merrillville, Indiana and I absolutely enjoyed their
performance ... I will be a Michael Jackson and Jackson Five fan until the day I die).
During one of the segments prior to the interview with The Jacksons, they began to
discuss a letter from a woman who was in a situation with a man where she found
herself worried about "the six date rule" (I have heard many men discuss 'the three-
date rule,' but I personally have never heard of the six-date rule).

At one point during this most entertaining discussion about the woman's
predicament, The View's very outspoken Co-Host, Whoopi Goldberg expressed her
thoughts about "waiting" to engage in sexual relations with a man versus exchanging
orgasms with a man when you simply feel like the time is right.
Goldberg:"Sometimes, you just want to hit it and run. Sometimes, [sex is] all you
want ... you don't want a (long-term monogamous) relationship. Sometimes, you just
want to get laid." Amen Whoopi. Amen.

To the credit of most of my male and female followers and supporters, the vast
majority of them tend to share my open-minded, free-spirited view regarding short-
term and/or non-monogamous sex (i.e., "casual" sex). We all know though that many
Americans are very prudish and harshly critical toward the idea of men and women
pursuing each other for nothing more than sexual gratification. I say each to their
own. Every man and woman is responsible for their own set of desires, interests,
choices and decisions.

If you do not care for casual sex ... I have a simple solution: do not engage in sex
with any man until you are married to him, engaged to him, or at minimum, sharing
the same residence with him. This will eliminate all chances of this man "tappin' that
ass" and then hitting the road to never be heard from again (even though marriage
does not prevent adultery).
My more regular readers of this column know from reading my articles that I am
pretty 'fair' and 'objective' when it comes to dishing out criticisms toward each
gender. I have harshly criticized various aspects of men's behavior toward women,
and I have equally criticized various aspects of women's behavior towards men.
Right now, I am going to point out behavior that I have seen exhibited
by some women that I just do not care for.

I have come to the conclusion that there are a good number of women who have no
idea how to reject men - and especially, no idea how to reject men who have
expressed an interest in engaging in casual sex with them.

Man to woman: "I think you are very hot ... very sexy .... and I think you and I should
get together sometime in the near future and do our best to make each other happy
in bed. I think our sexual chemistry would be outstanding. Now, I have to be upfront
with you ... I am not looking for anything too long-term or too 'serious.' I just got out
of a very serious relationship within the last few months, and I want to keep my
options open. I want to be forthright with you about that...."

My opinion on the proper way for a woman to reject this man's desires and interests,
assuming she is genuinely not interested in connecting with this man for a few days
or a few weeks of casual sex: "[insert man's first name here], I appreciate you being
very honest and direct with me about your long-term intentions regarding what type
of relationship you are looking for. There are so many men out here in society who
blatantly lie to women about their true desires and interests, so it is refreshing to
hear you be so candid with me about why you want to share my company in the near
future. With all due respect though, I have to let you also know upfront that I rarely, if
ever indulge in 'casual' sex because it just leaves me feeling totally unfulfilled. If I
enjoy a man's sexual companionship, then I am going to want to enjoy him regularly,
indefinitely, and exclusively. I do not like to share my companion with any other
woman. Therefore, I am going to have to decline your tempting offer, but it was a
pleasure speaking with you nonetheless."

[Note: That response was loosely based on an actual rejection I received from a
woman at a social event in Chicago a few years back]

Conversely, here is an example of rejecting a man in a manner that is unnecessarily

harsh and improper: "Excuse me?!? I beg your pardon?!? What do I look like ...
some sort of 'ho'?? The neighborhood 'slut'?!? You need to get a life and find Jesus.
You asshole. You jerk. I cannot believe the nerve of men these days!! So, I am
supposed to let you just 'use me' for sex for your own selfish enjoyment so you can
add another notch to your egotistical belt of conquests?!? PUHLEAZE. You are a
boy. I am looking for a mature MAN. You need to grow the fu** up. What is your
problem? For you to approach me, and think I would be willing to have a one-night
stand, weekend fling or other variation of casual sex with you is insulting to me and
highly disrespectful. Did your mother ever teach you any manners? I am a lady ... not
a whore to be used and discarded. You better find a hooker and take a class on
developing some class!!"

Quiz time. What message is each woman sending to the man in each scenario?
The conscious or subconscious message of Woman #1 to a man: "It is okay to be
honest with me about your true sexual desires, interests, and intentions. I may not
have the desire to reciprocate your desires and interests at this time, but I do
appreciate you being upfront and candid with me about what you want. I respect you,
and I want you to respect me. No need for any sort of animosity between us because
we have different goals and objectives."

The conscious or subconscious message of Woman #2 to a

man: "Honesty is NOT the best policy with women. Not at all. You are better off lying
to a woman, and making her at least halfway believe that you want something long-
term, emotionally profound and monogamous with her, than to 'keep it real' and have
women perceive you as a selfish, horny, sex hungry jerk. Next time you approach a
woman, tell her some pleasant 'white lies.' You will have a much better chance of
getting her in bed."

It is because of women like Woman #2 why the vast majority of womanizers are
great liars and manipulative game players. Then, you have women saying things
like, "Why can't men just be honest!! Why do they always lie to women SO much?!?"
Because you planted the seeds of motivation in their minds to become liars and
'head game' players. You say you want honesty from men when in reality, that is the
absolute last thing you want from a man.

I had an exchange on a message board for a social group I am a part of

on Meetup.com and this woman sided with my thoughts and sentiments. She gave
me permission to use her real name, so I will. Here is a response that
Chicago's Ruth Raickett-Roberts offered to me:

"Alan, I would like to be one of the few women you may meet in your life to say a
resounding THANK YOU. I say, "thank you" to you because you are one of the rare
men out here who truly have the utmost respect for women. You see, you are secure
enough in yourself to be totally and probably sometimes brutally honest with women.
Especially about your (sexual) intentions. A man like you is actually giving women a
lot of respect because you are allowing her to make a decision about if, how, and on
what terms she will interact with you. You allow women to keep their power by
presenting them with your truth upfront.

Ladies, if you meet any other men like Alan, stop calling them 'jerks' and 'sex fiends.'
Start appreciating the fact that they are allowing you to make an informed decision
about your future interactions with them. This in turn allows you to keep your
power and sustain your sanity. Stop forcing men to play all these stupid games with
you because you are insulted when they approach you with their truth. Then they
have to fabricate all these acceptable traits and personas to get what they are really
seeking from you. Now your feelings are hurt and your world is rocked and you are
pissed. Now that man who lied to you and misled you is now the number one big
time 'dog' (i.e., lying womanizer) on your list. BUT...... if you did not force him to take
your power to make a decision from you, in the first place, then you would not be
there with your pants down and this man gone.

It is of the utmost importance for you as a woman to have and set your standards for
your life and your interactions with men. Then you have the foundation to build your
decisions upon. Men who are liars and game players should be avoided and men
like Alan should be greatly appreciated because they are telling you their truth
upfront and straightforwardly.

Again, thank you Alan for being you."

No .... thank you Ms. Raickett-Roberts. Thank you for speaking the truth about men
speaking the truth. Hopefully, you will inspire women who are in the "Woman #2"
category to transition into the "Woman #1" category in my scenarios above.

As Whoopi said, many men AND WOMEN just want to get laid. Whether it is for a
few hours, a few days, a few weeks, or a few months. If you reject these truth-tellers
harshly, and do not allow them to be honest about the pursuit of their sexual desires,
they are simply going to find a more deceitful and manipulative manner to achieve
their goals and objectives with the next member of your gender that they meet after
being rejected by you.

Always invite honesty. Always.

You and your entire gender will be better off for it in the long-run.

Now, speaking of honesty, I have to reply to an Email from one of my good female
friends. She asked me, "Alan ... look at this new photo. Be honest ... do I look fat in
this new dress?"

You know what my response is going to be.

I mean, do I plan on eating some grilled chicken wings and drinking some Peach
Snapple on the 4th of July? All together now: DUH.

Truth. Gotta love it.

Female readers offer varied
perspectives on casual sex
and rejecting men
Well, it's time again for another edition of my Feedback from My Readers. I usually
feature an installment of responses from male and female readers of my column
after every five-to-seven articles that I have published. You can read my previous
eight editions of Feedback from My Readers by clicking HERE, HERE, HERE,
HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Starting with my first installment of this feature up until now, I typically only highlight
responses that are representative of a strong agreement to the content of one or
more of my last few articles, a strong disagreement or harsh criticism, or a desire
for further clarification and understanding of something I wrote in one or more of
my last few articles.

[Note: As usual, all first names have been changed for the sake of anonymity, and
many questions and/or comments have been edited, condensed and/or paraphrased
to some degree in order to either save space or correct spelling and grammatical
errors]

Email feedback in response to my article, ABC's 'The View' Co-Host Whoopi

Goldberg: "Sometimes, you just want to get laid"

From Rayna M.:

"Interesting article Alan, but why do I have to be so 'kind' and 'respectful' in

my rejection of men? Generally, I am not really a rude or disrespectful type of
woman, but if any man approaches me and simply says, 'I'm attracted to you and I
want to fu** you,' then I am not going to be motivated to be very cordial in my
response to his X-rated approach.

I would think many women would be offended by being approached in such a

shallow, sexually provocative manner by a man who they are not acquainted with, so
if any woman is approached by a man who is using erotically explicit, X-rated
language, why should any woman feel obligated to reject that type of man in a
manner that is calm and respectful, with the intention of sparing that man's ego or
feelings? Come on now Alan. Let's get real here (You always 'keep it real', right?).
Should I be respectful to a man who is conversing with me in a blatantly disrespectful
manner?"

Alan's response: It has been my experience that the terms "respectful" and
"disrespectful" tend to be defined by both men and women in a very highly subjective
manner. My definition of being "respectful" to a woman is probably very different
from the average woman's definition of being "respectful." If you read the comments
included in my last article by Chicago's Ruth Raickett-Roberts, she described a
man who is upfront and straightforwardly honest with his sexual desires, interests,
and intentions as being "respectful" to women.

As the author of Mode One: Let the Women Know What You're REALLY
Thinking and Oooooh . . . Say it Again: Mastering the Fine Art of Verbal
Seduction and Aural Sex, I get asked by men all the time, "Alan ... when I approach
a woman for the first time ... should I use 'PG-13' language, R-rated language, or X-
rated language?" If you read Say it Again, you will find that I discuss an Internet
survey where 54% of the women who participated in the survey said that they would
not have a problem with a man who they found physically attractive and sexually
appealing using X-rated or XXX-rated language with them in their first conversation.

I very rarely, if ever, look at any form of truth as being representative of a lack of
respect. In my mind, a man is only being disrespectful to a woman if she has already
made it known to him that she does not care for sexually provocative and erotically
explicit language, and he continues using that type of languagedespite the
woman's firm request to acknowledge and adhere to her personal boundaries. Other
than that scenario ... no. I do not think a man is being 'disrespectful' by being upfront
and straightforwardly honest with his sexual desires and interests.

[Note: I actually wrote an article about how controversial the concept of 'talking dirty'
to women can be: CLICK HERE]

More Email feedback in response to my article, ABC's 'The View' Co-Host

Whoopi Goldberg: "Sometimes, you just want to get laid"

From Alicia S.:

"Alan, I believe many men need to get in better touch with their instincts and their
more intuitive side, and knock off the 'desperate puppy' act and pick up on the subtle
and not-so-subtle body language and behavioral signs that most savvy women give
off to men. Hell, I know when a man is not interested in sharing my company in a
romantic or sexual manner (which is very, very rare, I have to say!!), but in those rare
instances when a man is not interested in me romantically or sexually, I really do not
have to have this man spell out his lack of interest in blunt terms. I can just feel it.
Why can't men be more perceptive and quit being so annoyingly persistent with
women who are just not into them?"

Alan's response: Well Alicia, I have mixed feelings on what you expressed. On one
end, if you read my last paperback, Say it Again, you will see that I myself even
encourage single heterosexual men to develop a keen sense of perception and
intuition toward women, and to pay attention to a wide variety of body language
cues ... some obvious, some not so obvious.

At the same time though, I do not believe in the idea of women "dropping hints" to
men in order to let these men know of their lack of interest in romance or sex. Just
say it. It only takes 15-30 seconds. "Sorry Ralph, but I have to let you know ... I am
just not interested in sharing your company in any sort of romantic or sexual manner.
At best, the only interest I have in sharing your company would be purely platonic. I
hope you can understand." How hard can it be for a woman to express a
disinterested response similar to that?

I am going to share a secret about women that most women do not like to admit
publicly. I mention this secret in my second paperback, Upfront and
Straightforward: Let the Manipulative Game Players Know What You're
REALLY Thinking. Most women - and particularly those women with highly
manipulative tendencies - do not like to reject men. They absolutely hate it. Men, pay
attention: The number one time you can tell you are dealing with a woman who is
looking to engage in 'manipulative head games' with you is when a woman is
reluctant to both a) fully reciprocate your desires and interests, and b) fully reject
your desires and interests.

Non-manipulative women have no problem doing one or the other. For example,
once you let a non-manipulative woman know that you want to have sex with her,
she is either going to say, "Yes, I am interested in having sex with you too....," or
she's going to say, "I'm sorry, but I am not interested in sharing your company in any
sort of sexual manner." Either, or.

Women with manipulative tendencies do not like such specific, straightforward talk
(which is why many of these types of women do not care for my Mode One
Approach). I had an attractive Black woman from Las Vegas admit that to me earlier
this year. I'll call her 'Janice.'

Janice told me in one conversation, "Alan ... I'm going to confess something to you
that many women won't. Most women do not like to reject men. I hate rejecting
men. The only time I have no problem rejecting a man is if I find him totally
unattractive, his personality is totally boring, and he is unemployed and has no
money. I have no problem rejecting a guy like that. But if a guy is fun to be around
and he has a great sense of humor, or he has money and is generous with it? Why
would I want to burn bridges with a guy like that? I'm not saying that I want to just
'use' the guy, but in a way, I guess that is what I am saying. Women like me love
having a lot of platonic male friends and 'just-for-fun' buddies. They come in handy
when you are bored, depressed, in-between relationships, or your finances are tight
and you need a favor. For that reason alone, I do not like to just flat-out reject guys.
They can always prove to be of some use to me in the future."

[Note: As you can probably predict, I wrote an article that relates to a lot of the
comments expressed by 'Janice': CLICK HERE]

Bottom line, I will always look to put a woman in a position where she either has to
fully reciprocate my sexual desires, interests and intentions .... or blatantly reject my
sexual desires, interests, and intentions. I do not want a woman operating in what I
commonly refer to as "The Ambiguous Zone." I am not looking to be any woman's
"Just-for-Fun" buddy (i.e., platonic social companion). In the same way many women
hate being thought of as nothing more than a "booty call," the vast majority of men
feel the same way about being categorized as a "Just-for-Fun" buddy.
Email feedback in response to my article, Many men and women love both "the
predictable" and "the unpredictable" in others

From Antoinette H.:

"I have never wanted to date a 'nice guy' and have a 'bad boy' on the side. Are there
women who really operate like this? If so, these women have to be low quality
skanks. I do not see how any woman would put up with a guy who is broke,
unemployed, and just totally irresponsible. That is so unappealing to me, I cannot
even tell you. Are these intelligent, educated women you are speaking of? And what
is up with many of you men and your promiscuous ways. Why do you need two or
more women to satisfy your sexual needs. Why can't one really great woman keep
you all satisfied?? I read your explanation of the Madonna / Whore Complex, but I
still don't get it. I guess men and women are just wired very differently."

Alan's response: Antoinette, why couldn't NBA legend Bill Russell be satisfied with
just one or two championship rings. Why did he need eleven? Why didMichael
Jordan need six? Most men with competitive egos already know the answer to that
question. Why do many women need a closet full of clothes and shoes? Why does
any woman need more than two or three credit cards? Why does a woman need a
dildo AND a vibrator? Questions, questions, questions.

First off Antoinette, you cannot pass judgment on women simply because they have
preferences that are different than yours. Not all women who have two or more
lovers are "skanks." That is your opinion ... not fact. Secondly, I have met women
who are college educated with high five-figure or six-figure salaries who have been
in a relationship with, or engaged in a few episodes of casual sex with, a man who
was broke, unemployed, and not in possession of a college degree. Different women
have different tastes in men.

I remember back in 2006, I met this woman in Chicago who had a Master's degree in
Chemical Engineering and a great job say to me, "I rarely date men who went to
college. I love street types. Thuggish, roughneck types. Those types of men get me
so wet when I am in their presence." She went on to tell me that one of her ex-
boyfriends was a convicted drug dealer. Some women do not adhere to the 'norms'
and conventions of society.

And finally, there is no one right answer or explanation I can give you regarding why
many men are promiscuous. I will speak for myself, and many men I have had
conversations with on the subject.

Plain and simple, many men do not associate good sex with "feelings of love" the
way many women do. Many men look at sexual enjoyment in the same manner that
they look at smoking a great cigar or having a drink after work. It is relaxing, it helps
them relieve stress, and it contributes to their ego being satiated.

For every ten women that a man meets that he finds physically attractive, he is only
going to identify one, two, three or four women as being "long-term girlfriend"
material. The remaining six-to-nine women he is just going to want to engage in
short-term and/or non-monogamous sex with.
There are a lot of factors that contribute to whether or not a man wants a long-term
vs. short-term sexual relationship with a woman, or a monogamous vs. non-
monogamous sexual relationship with a woman.

A few:

Do I enjoy this woman's company both sexually and non-sexually?

Am I indifferent over the idea of her having sex with other men, or does
the idea of her being with other men cause me to become jealous and
angry?

If I get her pregnant, would I want this woman raising my children?

Is all of my attraction to this woman based on the fact that she has a
pretty smile, a nice butt and a well-endowed chest?

Do I feel comfortable spooning and cuddling with this woman? Or does

the idea of both make me uncomfortable, and even annoyed?

Is this woman really attracted to me for who I am? Or is it my salary,

financial generosity and material trappings?

The list goes on. For most men, the process of answering those questions above,
and many other questions each individual male might have of his own, ultimately
determines if a man will view you as "girlfriend" or "wife" material, or if he places you
in the "booty call" or "friends-with-benefits" categories.

The world of dating and relationships in the 21st Century continues. As always, keep
that feedback and those responses coming!!! (flattering or critical ... I love them all!)

Enjoy the Fourth of July Holiday everyone. Be safe and stay cool.
Many women have a talent
for reading a man's mind
even before he opens his
mouth
I had heard rumors of this "psychic talent" that many women possess related to their
ability to predict the desires, interests, and intentions of men, but it was not until
recently that I had some women from Chicago confirm it for me.

Ever since I published my first paperback, Mode One: Let the Women Know What
You're REALLY Thinking, some women have pulled me to the side and offered
comments such as, "Alan, FYI: Women already know what you men want from
us. You all want sex. So, I don't understand why you are encouraging (single) men
to let their sexual desires and interests be known to (single) women. We already
know. Even before you open your mouth."

WOW! Unbelievable!

So, let me get this straight. I can just go to any party, nightclub, or social event ...
approach a woman ... look her dead in her eyes with a sly, seductive smirk ... and
she immediately knows that I want to seduce her into having sex with me? Is this
what is known as "subcommunicating" my sexual desires, interests, and intentions
to a woman of interest?

In just the last roughly fourteen days, I have had at least five women emphatically
communicate to me that a man expressing his sexual desires, interests and
intentions to a woman verbally is essentially "redundant." And all this time ... I
thought I was on to something with my Mode One Approach and philosophy, which
encourages single heterosexual men to approach women, and within the first few
minutes of their first conversation with these women, boldly let the women know
what their long-term sexual desires, interests, and intentions are.

Duh! All of this time I wasted selling all of these books and speaking at all of these
workshops. What was I thinking? (I bet if you are a woman reading this, you already
knew my thoughts! Didn't you!!)

I had a woman tell me within the last two weeks, "Alan, do men really need to state
their sexual interests to us? As women, we already know that having sex with us is
the number one thing on your mind. We know this. I don't really think it needs to be
said." A few other women said essentially the same thing. They said,"We know as
soon as a man approaches us, and initiates a conversation with us, that they want to
get in our pants. It's a no-brainer really."
Amazing. I know many men who wish they had the talent of Nick Marshall. Marshall
was a fictional character played by Oscar-winning actor Mel Gibson in the 2000
romantic comedy, What Women Want. Within the storyline of that film, Marshall
developed the ability to "read women's minds" as long as they were sitting or
standing within a few feet of his presence.

It seems many women already have this ability. So, I have a few specific questions
for those women who are fortunate enough to possess this very unique talent to
"read men's minds" regarding their sexual desires, interests, and intentions:

1. When a man approaches you, and initiates a conversation with you, how
can you tell if he wants long-term, monogamous "relationship" sex? Or
how can you tell if he just wants short-term, non-monogamous "casual"
sex, such as a one-night stand or weekend fling? Can you identify the
specific day, date and time he wants to have sex with you?

2. When a man approaches you, and initiates a conversation with you, can
you tell immediately if he wants both oral sex and intercourse versus just
one or the other? Can you tell if he wants to have a threesome with you
and one of your girlfriends?

3. If you know for a fact that a man wants sex from you even before he
opens up his mouth and communicates this to you, then why don't you
just lean toward him and start tongue kissing him, assuming that you are
definitely interested in having sex with him?

4. If you know for a fact that a man wants sex from you even before he
opens up his mouth and communicates this to you, then if you are
totally not interested in having sex with him, why don't you just stop
him from conversing with you period and say, "Hey! Don't say anything! I
already know you want to have sex with me at some point in the near
future ... but hey buddy ... I am so not interested! Let me save you time,
and me time, so that neither one of us waste any more valuable time!"

5. What if the guy doesn't speak English? Can you still read his mind if he
speaks another language, such as French, Portuguese or Spanish?

6. What if the guy is married, or is Gay? Can you immediately tell if he is not
single or heterosexual before he opens his mouth? What if the guy
genuinely wants to ask you directions to a jewelry store (to buy his
girlfriend an engagement ring)?

7. So, if you have men in your life who you maintain nothing more than a
"platonic friendship" with, are all of your "male friends" either a) men who
you have already had sex with? or are they b) men who you have never
had sex with, and more so, you made it specifically clear to these men
that you two will never, ever engage in oral sex or intercourse?

8. Last, but not least . . . similar to Question #3, why do single men and
single women who have a mutual interest in having sex with one another
even engage in conversations that last more than five or ten minutes??
 Why not just exchange looks .... exchange smiles and smirks .... hug and
kiss ... and then find somewhere to exchange orgasms? What is with all
of the trivial, unnecessarily excessive (not to mention, disingenuous)
"small talk"? Why not just get to the point?

For the next couple of weeks, I am going to try this "I am going to let the women read
my mind" approach. I will report back on how it goes. I am going to approach
women, look at them, and I'm simply going to say, "You already know what I want
to do ... so is it a 'yay' or a 'nay'?" If this approach does indeed work like crazy, I
am going to take all of my books out of circulation, and replace all of them with just
one new book.

My new book will be entitled, Just Don't Say Sh*t: Learning to Allow Women to
Read Your Mind So You Can Magically Seduce Them Within Minutes Without
Saying One Word

Okay, okay .... I have to choose a subtitle with fewer words.

Speaking of subtitles, I'm going to have to change the current one I have for
my Mode One book. Instead of "Let the Women Know What You're REALLY
Thinking," I think I'll now go with "The Women Already Know What You REALLY
Want From Them."

I never knew verbal communication was so damn useless.

Men and women have vastly different
attitudes toward casual sex and friendship
If you are a single (heterosexual) man or single (heterosexual or bisexual) woman
reading this, I have a quick question and quiz for you:

Think about all of the members of the opposite sex who you have maintained a
"platonic friendship" with for at least six months or longer. Now, narrow this group
down to those friends of the opposite sex who are not married, not engaged, and not
otherwise "romantically involved." (i.e., single and unattached).

Let's say each "friend" of yours who falls into this category was to invite you to
transition into a no-strings-attached "friends-with-benefits" sexual relationship with
them. What percentage of these male or female "friends" would you agree to engage
in regular, semi-regular, or occasional sex with?

a) All of them. 100%.

b) The vast majority of them. 75-99%.

c) Most of them. 51-74%.

d) One-third to one-half of them. 33-50%.

e) Less than a third of them. 11-32%.

f) Very, very few. 10% or less.

g) None of them. 0%.

My prediction by gender?

I might be wrong, but my strong feeling is that most of the men would choose "b" or
"c". Some would even choose "a." A few might choose "d". Very few single
heterosexual men would choose "e", "f", or "g".

For women, the results would be totally different. Based on my conversations with
women, I feel most women would choose "g" first, closely followed by "f". A few
would choose "e" or "d". Very few single heterosexual (or bisexual) women would
choose "c" or "b", and I doubt if any would choose "a".

Comedian Chris Rock, on platonic friendships between men and women: "You
know what's cool about being a woman? Women get to have platonic friends. 'He's
my pal, he's my bud, he's my platonic friend. I love him like a brother!' Men don't
have 'platonic friends.' Men ... we just have women we haven't (had sex with) yet. I
mean I got some platonic friends, but they are all by accident. Every platonic friend I
got was some woman I was trying to (have sex with), but I made a wrong turn
somewhere, and ended up in a woman's 'friend zone.' Oh no! I'm in the friend zone!!"
Book Author, Talk Radio Host, and Television Talk Show Host Steve Harvey on
platonic friendships between men and women: "Just about all of my friends are men.
I dont really have any female friends. For the most part, I am incapable of
maintaining a platonic friendship with a woman. My wife is my closest female friend,
and beyond that, I don't have any.

Many women will say, 'I have a number of men who are my good friends.' Thats not
true. Those men are your friend only because you have made it absolutely clear that
nothing else is happening beyond the platonic friendship that you created, not him.

Men will remain your friends in the hope that someday, there will be a 'crack in the
door' or a 'chink in the armor.' Once you open the door of opportunity, that guy who
you thought was just your 'buddy' will put forth his best effort to slide into that 'crack
in the door' you opened. 99.9% of men feel the same way I do about platonic
friendships.

If you don't believe me, ask your 'male friends' if they would be okay dating you or
having sex with you. Then, watch the fireworks happen."

A lot of women I know have attempted to challenge and refute the attitudes
expressed by men such as Harvey and Rock, but all of my experiences and
observations say that both comedians are very much on-point with their assessment
of men's general attitudes toward platonic friendships.

Over the last five weeks, I happened to get a good number of women riled up who
are part of a social networking group I belong to. What did I say to get many of them
rankled? I simply told them that most men are not genuinely interested in interacting
with women on a daily and/or weekly basis in a purely platonic manner. Many
women were HOT over my comments. I mean, some of them were downright angry.

At least one female friend came through with the truth that I have wanted more
women to confess. We were in a conversation about this very subject, and she
said, "Alan, you have to understand ... and I think you already know this ... but
women are much different than men when it comes to wanting to be desired. Men, in
my opinion, only care about being desired by those women who they want to be in a
relationship with, or they want to be desired by the women who they only want to
have (casual) sex with. Women are different. We want to be (romantically and
sexually) desired even by those men who we have absolutely no interest in having
sex with. For example, even if we know ahead of time that we don't want to kiss a
guy after a date, we still want him to try to kiss us. That's just how we are."

This is why many men and women who have read many of my previous
articles right here on The Examiner.com have frequently quoted one of my many
used assertions, which is "women value flattering attention and entertaining
conversation in the same way that men value hand jobs and blowjobs."

I once read where a woman said, "Women don't ever really 'want' casual sex.
Women usually 'settle' for casual sex. Most women always want to be in a (long-term
monogamous) relationship." If that comment is valid about women, then I will offer a
similar one about men. Men rarely want to maintain a (genuine) platonic friendship
indefinitely with a woman who they find physically attractive and sexually appealing.
The vast majority of men "settle" for platonic friendships. The number one preference
of just about any single heterosexual man is to engage in some degree of sexual
relations with a woman.

In the same way many women feel "insulted" and "disrespected" when you treat
them more like "booty call" or "jump off" material than "girlfriend" or "wifey"
material, many men feel the same way about being treated like "platonic friend" or
"play brother" material instead of being treated like "boyfriend" or "casual sex lover"
material.

Why are men and women so different when it comes to both casual sex and
platonic friendships?

1) Even though men compete with each other for wealth, fame, power, and respect,
men still very much enjoy the friendship and companionship of other men.

Comment: When it comes to being "just friends," most men feel like they can get
everything they want and need from other men. Many women on the other hand do
not necessarily enjoy the companionship and friendship of other women. Personally,
I have had many women offer comments such as, "I don't really like hanging out with
other women. Most of my friends are men." I have rarely, if ever heard a man say to
me that he prefers having more female friends than male friends.

2) As mentioned in the commentary expressed by my female acquaintance, women

love engaging in entertaining conversation with and receiving flattering attention from
men who they have no desire toward dating or having sex with; Men rarely share
that same sentiment toward women.

Comment: I always joke with my male and female friends that if they ever passed a
law prohibiting women from maintaining platonic friendships with men, women would
storm The U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. and try to burn it down.

Let's keep it real: I know women who can go longer without sex or romance than
they can attention from their platonic male friends. Over the years, I have known
many women who spent significantly more time in conversation with the men who
they were not having sex with than the men who they were exchanging orgasms
with.

One guy many of my Mode One followers ask me about is this man I used to work
with in Downtown Chicago. His name was Anthony. Anthony was very "average
looking," with an average physique, and an average income. He did not drive a fancy
or expensive automobile, and he was not particularly funny, witty or charismatic.

What was interesting though, Anthony had probably two-thirds of the women in our
company damn near begging him for a date, or at minimum, they would plead with
him to engage in a conversation with them. It blew my mind. I mean, women would
react to this guy like he was a celebrity or something. Most of the time, he would
completely blow the women off and ignore them.
One day, I felt compelled to ask him what his "hook" was. The "secret" to his
popularity with women. He simply uttered three words: "No Free Attention." Anthony
was a man of few words, but he did oblige me by elaborating a bit. Anthony basically
said many women essentially "charge" men to share their company in a romantic or
sexual manner. He said a good number of women will expect to be 'wined and dined'
and be offered a free lunch or free dinner even before they agree to make out with a
man or have sex with a man.

So, what Anthony did was "flip the script" in a most interesting manner. Whereas he
felt women offered platonic attention to men for free, but would require that men
sacrifice something of value for romantic and sexual attention, Anthony did the
reverse. What Anthony did was essentially "charge" women for platonic attention and
companionship, but he would offer a select group of women romantic or sexual
companionship for "free."

Anthony never engaged in entertaining "small talk" or "chit chat" with women unless
they offered to treat him to lunch or dinner, or perform some type of financial favor
for him. Many women who were frustrated by Anthony's behavior and demeanor
started calling him "arrogant" and "standoffish," but Anthony did not care. Anthony
rarely even engaged in small talk with the men in the office. I think the whole time I
worked with him, he and I only had two or three conversations that lasted more than
five minutes.

After working with Anthony, my own disdain for trivial, meaningless "chit chat" and
"small talk" became even stronger and more powerful. I have never really enjoyed
engaging in conversation with women that results in nothing more than them being
entertained, unless I am being paid for it.

3) Men rarely become "emotionally bonded" to a woman simply based on how good
the sex is with a woman, or how many orgasms she helped him experience.

Comment: Women, by their own admission, tend to develop emotions toward men
who are really good in bed, and help them produce powerful orgasms. Next to giving
birth, the primary instance that women release the hormone oxytocin (known as
"the bonding hormone") is when they are experiencing a powerful orgasm either from
receiving oral sex from a man, or engaging in intercourse with a man. (Note to the
fellas: If your skills in bed are anywhere from "less-than-average" to just "downright
horrible," the "good" news is, you don't have to worry about women stalking you or
becoming obsessed with you. You failed to help them release oxytocin!)

Men fall in love with women based on characteristics that have very little, if anything
to do with sex or orgasms. Men will fall in love with a woman based on
characteristics such as how loyal and devoted she is to him, how she interacts with
and raises his children, and how much she supports him while he is pursuing his
most desired goals and objectives in life. Conversely, many men could have
intercourse with a woman fifty plus times, and have two or three orgasms each time,
and never feel like they are "in love" with that woman.

These are the reasons why men typically pursue short-term and/or non-
monogamous sex much more frequently than women do. For women, if the sex is
good and satisfying, they have very little motivation to allow the frequency of it to be
erratic, occasional, or short-term, and even more so, they don't want to share a
man's satisfying sexual prowess with another woman.

4) Most men do not really see and/or acknowledge a "downside" to engaging in

casual sex with women; Similarly, the vast majority of women are not willing to
acknowledge any sort of disadvantage to maintaining a platonic friendship with a
man.

Comment: Have you ever heard a man "whine" or "complain" about having too
many casual sex partners? In a lighthearted manner, maybe ("It's a lot of work being
a straight-up pimp!"). The only men I know who have sometimes regretted casual
sex were either those who a) ended up with a sexually transmitted disease (STD)
or b) ended up getting a woman pregnant who they had no desire to be in a
relationship or raise children with. Other than those two exceptions, I rarely hear men
moan about the "detriments" of engaging in casual sex.

Have you ever heard a woman whine or complain about having too many platonic
male friends? I cannot recall even one conversation where I have ever heard as
much as one woman in my life offer a comment such as, "I cannot stand having all of
these male friends!!! I wish I was having sex with more of these 'male friends' instead
of just being platonic with them!!" If you have heard a few women express this
complaint, please write me and tell me about it. That would raise my eyebrows.

If you ask men and women, "do you want a romantic companion who is reasonably
good looking?" probably 90-99% of those you ask will respond, "Yes." If you ask men
and women, "do you want a romantic companion who is honest and loyal?" probably
99.9% of those you ask will respond, "Without question." If you ask men and women,
"do you want a romantic companion who is easy to get along with, and rarely argues
with you or causes any drama?" probably 99.9999% of the men will say, "Most
definitely!!" and maybe 75% of the women will say, "I guess so..." (I had to poke fun
at the ladies ... many of them love them some 'drama')

My point is, when it comes to the attributes, characteristics, qualities, and quirks that
we want most in our "ideal companion," (i.e., future wife, husband, long-term
girlfriend or boyfriend) men and women are pretty much on the same wavelength.
There are not too many major discrepancies.

The point where men and women start to become vastly different in their opinions
and attitudes toward members of the opposite sex is when it comes to those "second
tier" and "third tier" level companions.

Here would be an example of many men's way of thinking VS. many women's way of
thinking:

Men

1. Top tier: A woman who is "wife" material.

2. Near top tier: A woman who I would maintain a long-term monogamous
relationship with, but not necessarily marry

3. Second tier: A woman who I do not want to date exclusively, but I want
to engage in regular non-monogamous sex with (i.e., a "friends-with-
benefits" relationship)

4. Third tier: I am not interested in long-term monogamous sex or long-

term non-monogamous sex with this woman, but I am interested in
engaging in short-term non-monogamous sex with her (i.e., a one-night
stand, weekend fling, etc.)

5. Fourth tier: A woman who I want to have sex with, but she has placed
me in her dreaded "friend zone"

6. Bottom tier: A woman who I have no desire to have sex with

Women

1. Top tier: A man who is "husband" material.

2. Near top tier: A man who I would maintain a long-term monogamous

relationship with, but not necessarily marry

3. Second tier: A man who I want to be in a long-term monogamous

relationship with, but he already has a wife, a girlfriend, or one or two
steady sex partners; This frustrates me, but I am willing to settle for being
his "mistress," "side piece," or "other woman"

4. Third tier: A man who I am not really attracted to romantically or

sexually, but he is wealthy and is generous about 'wining and dining' me,
helping me with my bills, and buying nice gifts for me. If he's younger and
virile, I probably will go ahead and reward him with sex; If he's older and
impotent, I will just provide seductive "eye candy" for him

5. Fourth tier: A man who I am not really attracted to romantically or

sexually, but he has a very funny and entertaining personality, and he is
willing to talk to me when I am bored, depressed, or frustrated. He offers
me great advice on how to overcome my feelings of disappointment and
frustration with the men from the above three tiers

6. Bottom tier: A man who is broke, unemployed, and is boring to talk to or

hang out with ... or ... a man who is "decent" in bed, but not outstanding,
and I might call him up every now and then when I am really desperate
and extremely horny for sex, and no other more highly appealing option is
available

Now, neither of these two examples are based on "scientific data," but I would assert
that both examples of the male and female mindset here are both valid and realistic
based on my many conversations with single men and single women over the last
15-20 years or so.
If you notice, men and women are similar to each other when it comes to their top
tier companions. They have the same priorities. After that though, men and women
begin to have different priorities and perceived benefits.

For men, after love/loyalty/romantic companionship, the next thing men go for is
"friendship + sex," and if that is not available, then just sex. Friendship without sex is
their lowest priority and least desired preference. The women who they are not at all
sexually attracted to are not even on the radar.

For women, after love/loyalty/romantic companionship, the next option some women
choose to do is 'settle' for being a man's "second option" for romantic and sexual
companionship (i.e., a man's 'mistress' or 'woman-on-the-side'). If that opportunity is
not available, or if their moral standards and ethics are too high for that option, the
next type of companion they go for is a "Sugar Daddy" type who they may, or may
not, have sex with. Next on the priority list for women is a male platonic friend who
has an entertaining personality and an empathetic listening ear. Maintaining a
friendship with a man who has a boring personality and has nothing to offer
financially, or having non-monogamous sex with a man who is less-than-average in
bed, is their lowest priority and least desired preference.

For women, the major drawback to engaging in casual sex too frequently is the risk
of STDs, the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, or the potential to have men and other
women pass judgment on her sexual behavior, and eventually label her a "whore"
and/or a "slut." Men could care less about being "labeled."

For men, the major drawback to maintaining too many disingenuous platonic
friendships with women is that you could end up even more romantically and/or
sexually frustrated in the long-run than you were at the beginning of your "fake,"
phony friendship. This is why I shy away from FunClubbing. I don't like "playing the
role" of the "play brother," knowing deep-down that I want to exchange orgasms with
a woman.

The evidence is all around you. Closely observe single men in action and single
women in action. How often do you see a single woman blatantly reject an offer of
platonic friendship from a man with wealth, social connections, or at minimum, a
funny, witty, entertaining personality? Rare. How often do you see a single man
blatantly reject an invitation to have a friends-with-benefits relationship with a woman
who is physically attractive and possesses a high degree of sex appeal? Rare.

What should you take away from this article if you are a single woman? For
every ten men who are giving you the impression that they genuinely enjoy being
nothing more than "platonic friends" with you, at least six or seven of those ten guys,
if not more, are lying to you. They are just patiently waiting for that "crack in the door"
that Steve Harvey spoke of. They don't care if you crack that door of opportunity
open one week from now, one year from now, or ten years from now. They will be
waiting.

What should you take away from this article if you are a single man? Do not
become defensive and/or apologetic when women criticize your desire for casual
sex. This is your life ... not theirs. Do what you want to do for as long as you want to
do it. Just avoid lying to them about your true desires, interests, and intentions. Tell
the women straight-up that all you want is short-term and/or non-monogamous sex.

And if women consistently make attempts to indulge you in frequent episodes of

trivial, meaningless "chit chat" and "small talk?"

Remember the three words of my former co-worker Anthony.

No free attention.

If those women want to converse with you just for the sake of having an entertaining
conversation, make them buy you some chicken wings and Peach Snapple.

Or whatever second tier meal and beverage you prefer.

The social programming of
women often leaves many
men confused and
frustrated
One very enjoyable aspect of being the author of three paperbacks for single
heterosexual men in the age of the internet is that I regularly receive feedback from
men in a number of different countries across the globe. Are there a few "cultural
differences" regarding male-female interaction dynamics from country to country?
Sure. A few. Generally speaking though, the men I hear from in France or Germany
have many of the same issues as single men in Canada or here in the United States.

Some "experts" say that men and women have vastly different attitudes toward love,
sex, dating and relationships because of the distinctions in our genetic makeup
and/or hormones. Maybe, maybe not. Popular book author John Gray asserted that
"Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus." Okay. Some women subscribe to
the "we are from different planets" theory.

If you have read any of my three paperbacks, and particularly, my third

paperback Oooooh . . . Say it Again, you know what my number one assertion is
for why men and women have vastly different attitudes toward love, sex, dating and
relationships: social programming.

If you are a man reading this article, have you ever noticed that many women will
talk to you as if there is some sort of "handbook" that has been printed for all women
on earth that spells out exactly how men should behave toward women? (If anyone
has viewed the video on my website that captures me speaking to a group of men
in London, England in November 2010, I conclude that portion of the video by
saying, "Where's the handbook?")

Specific examples:

Woman: "Don't you know that you're not supposed to talk about sex in your very first
conversation with a woman? Every man knows that, or should know that."

My response: Where is the Men's Handbook of First Conversations with

Women that says that? Can I find it on Amazon.com or BarnesAndNoble.com? And
why is it that many women will say with a seductive tone, "Alan ... you are so bad ...
you are very nasty ....," while other women will respond with comments such
as "Alan! That is so disrespectful! You don't even know me!!" Is it that the women
with the first, more favorable response failed to read the aforementioned handbook?"
Woman: "Oh my God! I can't believe you just said that! Don't you know that you are
never supposed to use erotically explicit, X-rated language with women who you
have just met!! Didn't your mother or father teach you that? Every man knows that, or
should know that."

My response: See my exact same response above.

Woman: "Even if I was the one to ask you out, it's a known fact that men should
always offer to pay for the lunch bill or dinner bill. Every man knows that, or should
know that."

My response: Where is the Men's Guide to Lunch Date and Dinner Date
Etiquette that says that? Does it come in Kindle eBook form or Nook eBook form? I
mean, I thought the idea of a man paying for women's meals originated during a time
in society where men were the primary breadwinners. Am I wrong? Most of the
women I have dated in my life earned more money than me! So, am I still obligated
to pick up the bill even if it was the woman who invited me to lunch or dinner?

Woman: "Men should avoid making any sexual advances toward women who they
have just met. A man, if he is a true 'gentleman,' should never propose sex to a
woman outside the context of a long-term 'boyfriend-girlfriend' relationship or
marriage. That is so inappropriate and disrespectful. A man should always be
looking to become emotionally involved with a woman, have sex with her within the
context of a long-term, loving relationship, and ideally his ultimate goal should be to
marry that woman. You should know that already. All men, if they were raised
properly by their parents, should know this."

My response: Where is the Men's Guide to Avoiding Casual Sex and

Experiencing a Much Happier Love Life? Does it come in audiobook format?
Then, if what you say is true ... why do so many men and women engage in one-
night stands, weekend flings, and "friends-with-benefits" relationships? Why do some
women engage in orgies and threesomes? Why do some women who frequent
church every Sunday end up becoming pregnant even though they have no
husband, fianc or steady boyfriend? What about Karen Owen and her infamous
"Duke List?"

Did my late mother teach me a few things about being a "gentleman" toward
women? She sure did. Did she emphasize being polite and "respectful" toward
women? She sure did.

End result: Her teachings ... God Bless her soul ... left me more confused and
frustrated than ever before in the long-run. These feelings of confusion and
frustration are why I ultimately ended up writing my first paperback, Mode One: Let
the Women Know What You're REALLY Thinking.

Starting with the latter half of my senior year of high school, when I was real, raw,
straightforward and provocative with women ... I had women calling me every day,
every other day, and inviting me to have sex with them.
When I was polite, pleasantly phony, and frequently engaged in conversations with
women that were entertaining, but yet non-threatening and conventional ... I had a
number of women complimenting me for being "nice," "well-mannered," and "sweet,"
but rarely did my tongue ever gain the opportunity to massage their tongue.

The reason why my books have resonated with single heterosexual men in up to
twenty-five different countries is because the vast majority of men I hear from have
experienced exactly what I experienced. I have had men in Brazil, Colombia,
Croatia, Guatemala, India, Russia, and The United Kingdom write me notes
saying, "Alan ... wow. I read your books, and I can totally relate to feeling like a
'frustrated nice guy.' And it is not a great feeling."

I have noticed in just about all of my past conversations with my male followers and
supporters, it was their mother who encouraged them to be a "well-mannered
gentleman" toward women. Very rarely, if ever, was it their fathers who offered that
advice.

My late father rarely offered me advice regarding how to behave toward women. The
only advice of his that stands out in my mind was, "If you have sex, use a
dependable condom" and "don't get married before you have truly experienced
life" (translation: don't get married until you have sowed your wild oats). My Dad did
not say much else. His general attitude was, "he will figure out on his own what he
needs to do in order to attract the women he wants to attract." It was my beloved
mother that was constantly saying, "You should talk about this ... and you should
avoid talking about that. You should do this ... and you should avoid doing that." Etc.,
etc., etc.

Why is it that a woman has never felt "shy" or "embarrassed" about bringing up the
topic of sex in a first conversation with me? Have you ever heard a man say,"Oh my
God!! Excuse me?!? What is your problem?? Were you not raised to avoid
conversing about the subject of sex with a man in your very first conversation with
him?!? Goodness gracious. Get some manners young lady." I think I might say that
to a woman one day just to see her response.

I have had women at nightclubs grab my crotch or pinch my butt, and these women
never thought twice about acting embarrassed about it. Where are these women's
"handbooks?" What if a man was to haul off and slap the you-know-what out of a
woman for touching his "private" area?? Women would press charges and accuse
him of assault and battery, even though she was the one who was "disrespectful" in
the first place. Right?

Men do not want their lovely daughters to become unexpectedly pregnant during
middle school, high school, or even college, so they tell their daughters how to act,
and how to separate the "good guys" from the "bad boys." Women's mothers also tell
them that it would not be in their best interest to gain a reputation for being
"promiscuous" because that might make it harder for them to attract a long-term
boyfriend or future husband. So, the mothers also send the message,"stay away
from those boys who are just looking to get into your pants."
But many young women quickly end up surmising that the "good guys" and "nice
boys" are just too darn predictable and boring. The more unpredictable "bad
boys" - you know the ones ... the guys who could care less about a woman's
learned parental and social brainwashing - tend to be perceived by the women as a
bit more exciting and challenging to their ego.

So ... let the faades begin.

My advice to men: read my books (and any other book that will not leave you
feeling emasculated in today's society) ... and do not try to specifically be perceived
by women as a "nice guy" or a self-centered, egotistical "jerk." Just be your true
self. If women criticize you for doing so ... on to the next woman. Women: If all of the
advice you promote from your mythical "handbooks" is working for you, more power
to you. If it is not ... just be real.

Men, I have to warn you: if you go against my advice, and find yourself feeling
obligated to give in to the words of wisdom offered by "Dear Mom," and you
ultimately end up adhering to women's (often times faulty) social programming, you
will end up reading one particular "handbook" over and over and over again. You
ask, what is the title of this particular handbook?

Forever in Her Friend Zone: The Men's Guide to Permanently Preventing

Sexual Arousal in Women and Maintaining the Flames of Platonic Friendship
for Life!!

I believe that is available in paperback, eBook, and audiobook.

Cheers.
Women, sex, and erotic
submission: Does "no"
ALWAYS mean "no"?
Actually ... no
I have known a 'secret' about women for many years now, and a good number of
men I know gained knowledge of this 'secret' years ago. Some, as early as high
school or college. Other men did not realize this 'secret' about women until their
thirties or forties. What is the 'secret?'

If you are a man who keeps up with bestselling books, have you ever asked yourself
why the book Fifty Shades of Grey is so popular? Even women who normally do
not read kinky erotica are reading this book. Why?

Years ago I read a book by a popular streetwise pimp named Robert Beck. Beck's
street name was "Iceberg Slim." and he wrote a book entitled, PIMP: The Story of
My Life. Some might be asking, "What can a college educated writer and author who
was brought up in a middle class home learn about women from a street pimp who
did prison time?" A lot. Trust me.

Beck has too many good quotes for me to list here, but in one chapter, he basically
says (paraphrasing), "Women will always try to 'test' men. Yearly, monthly, weekly,
or even daily. Women want to see how much backbone you have as a man. How
much [undesirable and/or disrespectful behavior] you're willing to take from them. If a
woman identifies you as a 'weak punk' (i.e., a man with no backbone who will allow
women to disrespect him and dominate him), she will never be [erotically]
submissive to you. Never. The only way you will get a woman who views you as a
'punk' in bed is to pay her a nice sum of cash. It is in a woman's nature to want to be
[erotically] submissive to a man, but only a strong-willed man with the backbone of
steel."

"Alan ... what is the 'secret' you are referring to?"

Despite the rants of many hardcore feminist types and so-called "strong,
independent women," I have found that many, many women love to be erotically
dominated by men. In my personal experience, I would say that at least five or six
out of every seven women I have engaged in either phone sex with or physical sex
with (or both) at some point revealed to me that they wanted me to totally dominate
them sexually.

This is the basis for the Fifty Shades novel written by E.L. James. A woman
named Anastasia Steele allows herself to be totally erotically dominated by a wealthy
businessman named Christian Grey. You noticed I specifically used the phrase,
"allows herself to be..."

Quick Note #1: There are men who also love to be erotically dominated by women.
This is where the concept of the "Dominatrix" comes into play.

Here is my first lesson to those men who are "newbies" in the world of erotic
domination and submission: You can never "coerce" or "force" a woman to be
erotically submissive to you. That will inevitably backfire (take note Chad Johnson).
A real "dom" or "top" (i.e., man who is naturally erotically dominant) will never try to
'bully' a woman into being his submissive partner. Only the type of man who Iceberg
Slim described as a 'weak punk' would start transitioning into the territory of rape and
date-rape.

Quick Note #2: Unlike Missouri Congressman Todd Akin, I believe any form sexual
assault or "rape" is 'legitimate' ... and wrong. I define 'rape' as anytime you are
forcing a woman (or man) or coercing a woman (or man) to have sex with you
against their will or consensual desire.

Now, if rape and date-rape is representative of "crossing the line," then a man
erotically dominating a woman would be representative of easing right up to the
imaginary border of a woman's "line," but not going any further. In other words, you
want to challenge the lines of her personal boundaries without blatantly violating
them. Does this mean that "no always means no?" No.

In the fetish world of BDSM and erotic domination and submission, there is a
concept known as a "Safe Word." You see, with doms and subs ('subs' are also
known as "bottoms," which are women and men who are naturally erotically
submissive to their partners), sometimes telling your erotic role-play partner "no,
stop!" is a huge turn-on. So, in the context of erotic role-play, "no does not
always mean no." It often means, "I want you to become more aggressive toward
me! I want you to become more dominant and forceful!" Most men and women will
do anything to enhance and heighten their sexual experiences.

For a dom and sub involved in an episode of erotic role-play, it is the Safe Word that
actually means, "No. Stop. And I'm dead serious. Stop right now." A Safe Word
can be a color, such as "red," "blue," or "yellow." It could be a fruit, such as
"blueberries," "strawberries," or "bananas." Sometimes, it might be the phrase "ice
cubes" (which means, "you had me warming up, but now I feel cold and turned
off") or "desert downstairs" (which is a woman's way of saying, "Initially, you had me
so turned on and aroused! But just now, you did or said something that unfortunately
totally turned me off). Before erotic role-play even takes place between a dom/top
and a sub/bottom, the two partners agree on what the Safe Word is for all involved.

I remember just under two years ago, I had a female friend send me an adult film clip
from a porn series that featured dominant white men being verbally abusive, and to a
degree, physically abusive toward African-American women. This female friend
found the clip racist and degrading of Black women and wanted me to write an article
blasting this adult film series. I write quite often about sex and seduction, and have
interviewed a number of adult film actors and actresses on my two talk radio podcast
programs, Upfront & Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie and The Erotic
Conversationalist.

Here is what was most interesting about the clip: For the first two-thirds of it, the men
were being totally mean-spirited and abusive toward this woman. Initially, I felt sorry
for her. For the first few minutes, I was thinking to myself, "Why would any woman ...
Black, White, Asian, or Latino ... even allow herself to be in this position without a
gun being pointed at her head? Does this woman need the money that badly?!?"
Then, something interesting happened. The woman seemed to inadvertently twist
her ankle, and she yelled out a Safe Word. I believe it was "yellow."

In a matter of seconds, the demeanor of the two men involved in the erotic abuse
toward this woman changed dramatically. These men who initially came across as
mean, cold-hearted, racially prejudiced and misogynistic were all of the sudden nice,
caring, and concerned. They asked the woman, "Are you okay? Are you in any sort
of pain? Do you need time to rest?" The woman soon responded that she was okay,
and then minutes later, they returned to their earlier roles of the two men being ultra-
dominant and the woman being ultra-submissive. I was like, "Wow." It was like
witnessing three stage actors "break character" while watching a live play on
Broadway.

When I was a featured speaker in Las Vegas earlier this year, I met a fascinating
author and speaker by the name of James Amoureux. Amoureux's book is
entitled, How To Start A Kinky Relationship: The definitive guide to starting and
sustaining a healthy, loving, satisfying alternative relationship. Amoureux is an
extremely intelligent, insightful, and articulate gentleman (he has an MBA from the
University of Chicago).

Amoureux shared with me experiences and concepts from the world of BDSM (what
is also known as "the fetish scene" or "the adult alternative sex scene") that I knew
nothing about. My own experiences with erotic domination-submission rarely went
beyond the verbal realm. Many men and women who are truly into the dom-sub
lifestyle get into handcuffs, ropes, blindfolds, whips, and anything else that adds
"spice" to their sex life. I say, if it helps you and your partner(s) have a better erotic
and orgasmic experience ... go for it.

Here is probably my own best example of how many women in society are "closet
erotic submissives/bottoms": I was a member on an online matchmaking site
called BlackPeopleMeet.com (I used to be a dating advisor and contributor to
their online magazine), and for a 2-3 month stretch, my profile was fairly
conservative and conventional. I wrote, "bachelor and public speaker who travels
quite often looking to meet some new and different women while visiting different
cities, blah, blah, blah." I received maybe one or two responses per week.

Later, as sort of a "social experiment" related to the theme of this article, I changed
my profile to say, "Very erotically dominant bachelor looking for a woman who is
willing to be totally obedient and submissive. More specifically, I want a woman who
has the potential to be my personal sex slave if that is the role I choose for her."
Over the next three months, after posting that profile, I received over three hundred
responses from women in different cities across the country. And I am talking,
women with photos that made them look extremely conservative and prudish. Many
of the women who responded to me had Masters degrees, law degrees, medical
degrees, and doctoral degrees.

So men ... if you did not know before you read this article, you know now: Many
women love being erotically dominated by men who they are physically,
intellectually, and sexually attracted to. The key again though is you can't be "weak."
No balls, no backbone = No women are going to allow you to dominate them in the
bedroom. Also, the women have to trust you. Too many psychotic types running
around out here.

Assuming you are reasonably handsome, reasonably charming, honest and

trustworthy, mentally and emotionally well-adjusted and sane, and you do indeed
have a backbone of steel ... your fun is just about to begin my friend.

Now, a few women will write me and say, "Alan, I really enjoyed that article of yours
on erotic domination and submission..."

Then, I will ask, "Did you just 'kinda, sorta' enjoy it ... or did you really, really enjoy it."

Some will say, "I really, really enjoyed it."

Me: "I want you to say, 'I really, really enjoyed it Sir'..."

The women, "I really, really enjoyed it Sir...."

That my friend is known as the Fifty Shades of Alan Roger Currie.

Shhhhhh. Don't tell anyone. That's our "secret."

Mastering the Art of Asking
Questions is the #1 key to
getting to know someone
Two-and-a-half weeks ago, I was a featured speaker and a moderator at a
Relationship Chat in Chicago. One woman in attendance said, "Alan, you seem to
encourage men to be upfront and straightforward with women regarding their desire
for casual sex, but for me, even when I am only interested in having casual sex with
a man, I want him to take time to get to know me." One or two other women echoed
this woman's sentiments. My question to the women in attendance was, "How do
you specifically define 'getting to know you'?" All of the sudden, many women
became tongue-tied. At best, I received a lot of vague answers.

If you are a single woman reading this article, I am going to ask you: What is your
specific definition and/or description of a man "getting to know you?"

We all have our own individual set of "pet peeves" about life and other people's
behavior, and if you are a frequent reader of my column and my books, or a frequent
listener of my talk radio podcast program, Upfront & Straightforward with Alan
Roger Currie, you probably know already what my top pet peeve is. For those who
are new to my column, let me tell you right off the bat: I absolutely detest what I refer
to as "trivial and/or phony small talk" or "entertaining chit chat."

Now, a lot of men and women tend to assume that because I don't like "small talk"
that this must mean that I am "not good at it." Cue the television game show "wrong
answer" buzzer here. When I want to be or need to be, I can be as phony as Mitt
Romney giving a pep talk to new welfare recipients at Church's Chicken in
Compton. The only thing is, whenever I do catch myself engaging in too much
"pleasantly phony banter" with others, I very much start cringinginside.

Let me make this clear: engaging in trivial, disingenuous 'chit chat' and 'small talk'
with a man is not going to allow you to get to know him, or vice versa.

Many men and women think engaging in a number of trivial, but entertaining
conversations with a member of the opposite sex allows you to "get to know them."
Cue the game show "wrong answer" buzzer again. I could have ten lighthearted
conversations with a woman about such subject matter as her favorite movie, my
favorite movie, her favorite NBA and NFL team, my favorite NBA and NFL team, her
favorite food items, my favorite food items, her funniest story from high school or
college, my funniest story from high school or college, her thoughts on dogs as pets
vs. cats as pets, my thoughts on dogs as pets vs. cats as pets, and a few other
similar trivial, basic, and conventional topics, but after those ten entertaining and
mildly informative conversations have concluded, will I genuinely feel like I "know
this woman?" Will this woman feel like she truly "knows me?"
I do not agree with all of the advice offered in Steve Harvey's Act Like a Lady,
Think Like a Man, but I do agree 100% with Harvey's tip that women should always
ask questions of men in their first few conversations with men. As the host of two talk
radio podcast programs, I am all about asking my guests and listeners questions.
Questions, questions, and even more questions.

Some people think it takes days, weeks, months or years to "get to know someone."
That is not necessarily true. You can get a good idea of the type of person someone
is in as little as an hour or two if you know how to ask people the right questions.

You take Oprah Winfrey. This woman is a billionaire. What is her main talent?
Acting? Singing? Dancing? I believe she possesses all of those talents (or at least,
one of those three), but none of those are what made her super-successful and well-
respected. Oprah became a household name by having the boldness and
unapologetic courage to ask people very personal and very provocative
questions. Barbara Walters became famous in her early years for the same talent.

Just about all of the top tier interviewers in media and entertainment possess this
trait. Many of the nation's best attorneys also have this trait. They all know how to
ask questions that provoke people to reveal their real thoughts, desires, interests,
intentions, and past experiences. Questions that run the risk of making men and
women feel "uncomfortable" to one degree or another.

I do this on my own talk radio programs. I have had at least a handful of my guests
hang up on me prior to the conclusion of the scheduled interview because they did
not care for the type of questions that I asked them. A few of those irritated guests
have said, "Alan, some of your questions were too personal, too intrusive, and too
provocative." I did not create a talk radio show to ask guests nothing but lighthearted,
"softball" type questions. Both Winfrey and Walters have made a number of their
guests angry because of their line of questioning, or in other cases, they caused their
guests to get emotional and cry.

When you go in for any job interview, what is the number one activity? Questions
about your career goals. Questions about your work ethic. Questions about your
character and integrity. And any additional questions to see if you possess the
potential to be a good employee for that particular company. Many men and women
in society have earned a ten-year career, twenty-year career or thirty-year career
based on a thirty minute, forty-five minute, or hour long interview.

If you are a woman looking for your next boyfriend or future husband, your head
should be full of questions for your potential intimate companion. Questions,
questions, and even more questions.

What would be my starting point?

I always divide a potential romantic companion's behavior into three

categories: 1) Qualities about a person that I highly desire / prefer, 2) Behavioral
characteristics that I don't particularly care for in a person, but could conceivably
"tolerate" indefinitely, and 3) Those physical and non-physical attributes that I refer to
as "deal breakers" (i.e., Behavioral characteristics that I cannot tolerate for more
than a day or two, or at most, a week or two)

Assuming you have your own version of this same three-category concept, most of
my early questions would deal with category #3 (the "deal breakers"). For example, I
absolutely cannot tolerate cigarette smoke in my company at all. Consequently, I
cannot be in a long-term romantic relationship with a woman who smokes cigarettes.
Smoking is a major "deal breaker" for me.

Therefore, I will usually ask women in my first or second conversation with them, "do
you smoke?" If the woman responds, "Yes, I do...," then I know right there she is not
girlfriend or wifey material. The most intimate interaction she can expect from me is
maybe a one-night stand or weekend fling (but even for casual sex, I do not like
kissing a woman who smokes cigarettes).

Another more personal and intimate question I tend to ask women is about their love,
hatred or indifference toward fellatio. Many times, as early as my first conversation
with a woman, I will boldly ask her, "Do you enjoy giving head?" or "Are you prudish
when it comes to oral sex?" A few women have had an adverse reaction to those
types of questions. Some women will offer comments like, "I can't believe you just
asked me that!! Don't you know ... you're not supposed to ask a respectable woman
that sort of question until you have gotten to know them better!!"

Here is my thing: me asking a woman that question is part of me "getting to know

her better." Why? Because if a woman is not into (giving) oral sex, that is a major
'deal breaker' for me. I cannot date a woman long-term or monogamously if she has
some sort of aversion, or very prudish attitudes, toward the idea of (giving) oral sex.
Similar to a woman who smokes, the best that woman can expect from me is some
form of short-term and/or non-monogamous sex.

Last fall, I interviewed a woman named Dr. Veronica Anderson. Dr. Anderson is
one of the few women I've conversed with that actually encourages women to talk
about sexual-related issues on the first date. Dr. Anderson said during our
interview, "There is no point in spending weeks or months developing an emotional
bond with someone only to later find out that you and this person are not sexually
compatible with each other at all. That is a complete waste of your time and their
time. Sex is one of the most important components of any relationship or marriage,
so that means that you and your future partner need to find out early on if you two
have the same type of desires and interests when it comes to sexual enjoyment and
satisfaction. Sex should definitely be talked about in the early stages of getting to
know someone." Amen to that Dr. Anderson.

In my opinion, all of your early questions with someone should be directly or

indirectly related to your personal 'deal breakers.' If a man having a poor credit rating
is a 'deal breaker' for you, then you should ask a man about his credit. "Well, I don't
want to just come right out and ask a man does he have good credit! That's tacky!!" I
disagree. It depends on how important a man's credit score is to you. If that is a
major deal breaker for you, then questions about a man's credit score should be
included somewhere in your first three-to-five conversations with a man.
Cheating is usually a big issue with women. Many surveys say that the top three
reasons why women end relationships with men are 1) infidelity, 2) general
sexual dissatisfaction on behalf of the woman, and 3) a significant change in a man's
degree of financial stability or a significant decrease in a man's level of income.

So, plain and simple, one of your top priorities as a single woman looking for a long-
term monogamous romantic companion should be to ask a man questions related to
his history of cheating (if any), and his desire to be honest with women and his
willingness to remain indefinitely faithful to women. "Can I ask you a personal
question? Has a woman ever ended a relationship with you because you cheated on
her?" Now, many men may become 'uncomfortable' with that question, but SO
WHAT. That means you are asking questions that really matter. Questions that are
causing a man to reveal who he really is to you.

I have found in my experience, people who are honest, genuine, and real do not get
bent out of shape in response to personal, specific, and straightforward questions.
They will either answer the question straightforwardly, or they will say, "I am not
ready at this point to answer that question in the manner that I would ideally like
to..." (or something to that effect).

Men and women who are dishonest, phony, hypocritical, and/or love to engage in
'manipulative head games' hate very upfront, specific, straightforward questions.
They absolutely despise them. These are the types that will get agitated, frustrated,
and even downright angry when you ask them "personal" questions. Why? These
types do not want you to know their real thoughts, their honest desires, their genuine
interests, or their true long-term and/or short-term intentions.

Your second phase of questions should center on your category #2 qualities (i.e.,
those characteristics that you do not really care for, but could conceivably tolerate in
a long-term relationship). Here is a handout that I provided to the single women
who attended my Relationship Chat in Chicago. Many of the women have written me
and said that they have already included some of my suggested questions in their
conversations with potential men of interest. So, even though all three of my
paperbacks are geared toward helping the men ... it can never be said that I have
not done my part to help out the women too.

Bottom line: you will not "get to know someone" by engaging in conversations full of
"entertaining fluff talk." You conversations need to real, raw, honest, provocative,
and revealing.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to finish reading this book I purchased the other day.
It's called, The Bachelor's Guide to Improving Your Credit Score in 60 Days or
Less!

Hey fellas ... you just never know.

New eBook inspired by
Examiner article becomes
an Amazon Top 10 "Sex"
bestseller
Who knew?

If you are a regular reader of mine, you probably already read my article from
Tuesday, September 25, 2012 entitled What women should men avoid? Very few
authors offer advice on this subject. I received more feedback from male readers for
this article than any article I have ever written on The Examiner.com within the first
24 hours after an article of mine was published, and the second highest amount of
feedback from male readers overall (the most feedback I have received overall from
male readers was for my article entitled, How women respond to you often times
depends on the "Alpha male" vs "Beta male" dynamics; For most of my articles,
I usually receive more feedback from female readers than men).

99% of the advice men want from me is usually related to how to approach a
woman, how to initiate a conversation with her, and ultimately how to get her to
become their next girlfriend or casual sex partner. Less than 1% of the questions I
typically receive usually have to do with men asking me what women to AVOID
pursuing.

Most of the time, the questions I receive are more along the lines of, "Hey Alan, what
do I need to do to get laid with more chicks this year than last year," or one of my
favorites, "Alan ... I just met two women at the same party, and I have them on the
verge of agreeing to a threesome with me. Any tips on how not to screw it up?" Men
looking to sow their wild oats crack me up. Gotta love 'em.

This time though, I received questions like, "Hey Alan, how can I distinguish between
genuine romantic interest from a woman and insincere interest from that same
woman? There is this one woman who I am really into, but I cannot tell if she just
wants to mess with my head" or "Alan, I have been in a relationship for three months
now with a new girlfriend, and she seems fine right now, but sadly, she is slowly but
surely starting to reveal some 'red flag' qualities and quirks, and I am beginning to
become worried. What are your thoughts Alan?" See ladies ... not all men are
'shallow' (a common label thrown at men known for looking for casual sex) and only
looking for one-night stands and weekend flings.

In the last month or two, I have had as many as three male supporters of mine ask
me questions related to how to quickly and effective identify women who
either a) were more-than-likely going to 'string them along' for a few days or a few
weeks, and then eventually reject them / not have sex with them, or b) if the women
did become these men's new long-term romantic companions, they would end up
causing the men a high degree of stress, frustration, and regret in the long-run.

When I offer advice to men, not only do I tend to recommend that the men read
my own books, but at least half of the time, I will recommend a book by at least one
other author if I feel that another author may have a perspective to offer my client
that is a wee bit different, but equally as helpful, as my own advice.

When I did a search on Amazon.com and other websites, what I quickly noticed was
that there have been virtually no books written by men or women targeted at single
heterosexual men that primarily centers on what types of women that men
should avoid rather than pursue.

If you search for "books about types of men women should avoid," more-than-likely,
your search engine is going to return about at least 15 or 20+ website hits or results.
The vast majority of dating and relationship book authors seem to gear their advice
toward helping women in today's dating scene (as I have mentioned many times
before, women purchase far more books in the category of "dating and
relationships self-help" or "marriage self-help" than men do. The only types of books
most men want to read are books with titles like "How to seduce a woman and get
laid in 48 hours or less").

So, bottom line, that is what provoked my last article. The response and feedback I
received was very flattering and overwhelming.

I ended up joking with some friends and supporters on Facebook that I should
expand my last article into a book. A friend and loyal listener to my talk radio podcast
program by the name of Alix encouraged me to do just that.

Starting with Wednesday, September 26, 2012, I said to myself, "I am going to write
a 60 or 70 page book." The next day, I upped that to 80 or 90 pages. By Saturday, I
upped it to 115-125 pages. Next thing I know by Monday of this week, I had written
130-140 pages. Sometimes, when you are a writer, you get into a "flow." Similar to a
basketball player who gets into a "zone," and all of his shots seem to be going into
the basket.

I debated with a handful of title options such "The Ten Types of Women that Men
Should Avoid in Today's Dating Scene" and "Ms. Wrong: The Bachelor's Guide to
Avoiding Women with Issues" Finally, I decided on The Possibility of Sex: How
Naive and Lustful Men are Manipulated by Women Regularly.

One thing I did not want to do in my new eBook is just blatantly "bash" women in a
highly invalid manner. In all of my writings, I always try my best to offer a very
"objective" point of view. There are a lot of good women in society who would make
a great wife, a great girlfriend, and even a great platonic friend for a number of men,
and I did not want to offer any off-base generalizations that would inevitably "lump"
the good women with the bad apples in their gender.
This press release explains in more detail the structure and general content of
my new eBook. Speaking of eBooks, the great thing about Amazon.com's Kindle
format is that any qualified author can publish an eBook in a matter of a day or two
(assuming they own their own ISBN numbers, which I do). If I was going to first
introduce this as a paperback, it would have taken me weeks, if not months to get it
out on the market.

With Amazon's Kindle format, I submitted the manuscript to Amazon on Wednesday

morning, and by late afternoon / early evening on Thursday, it was available for sale
on Amazon's site.

Here is the craziest thing of all:

Amazon.com has a "ranking system" based on how many book sales you have per
hour and/or per day. Each book has two rankings: Your overall ranking, and your
category ranking, assuming your book cracks the Top 100 bestseller list on any
given day (BlogTalkRadio, which is the Internet Radio Network that hosts my talk
radio show, has the same set-up; Each day, they show you your overall ranking,
and your individual category ranking).

Amazon.com has somewhere between 8,000,000 and 9,000,000 books available for
sale to customers each day, each week, and each month. The most ideal ranking
any author wants is to be in the Top 100 bestselling books overall. If you achieve
that level, more than likely, your book has been on the New York Times Bestseller
list at least once or twice.

My books have never been ranked in the Top 100 bestselling books overall (I still
dream of that day before I leave this earth), but the next best thing is to have your
book ranked in the Top 100 bestselling books in its specific category. I have
managed to earn slots in the Top 100 category rankings multiple times.

Here would be an example of my highest ranking for the first three books I published:

1) Mode One: Let the Women Know What You're REALLY Thinking

Highest Overall ranking since being published in late February 2006:

#10,167 (paperback) / #28,012 (Kindle eBook format)

Highest Top 100 ranking in one or more specific categories: #15 in the category of
"Dating" (paperback) / #11 in the category of "Mate Seeking" (Kindle eBook
format)

2) Upfront and Straightforward: Let the Manipulative Game Players Know What
You're REALLY Thinking

Highest Overall ranking since being published in April 2009: #36,815 (paperback) /
#38,769 (Kindle eBook format)
Highest Top 100 ranking in one or more specific categories: #29 in the category of
"Dating" (paperback) / #37 in the category of "Interpersonal Relations" (Kindle
eBook format)

3) Oooooh . . . Say it Again: Mastering the Fine Art of Verbal Seduction and
Aural Sex

Highest Overall ranking since being published in late December 2011:

#38,543 (paperback) / #30,307 (Kindle eBook format)

Highest Top 100 ranking in one or more specific categories: #19 in the category of
"Dating" (paperback) / #23 in the category of "Sex" (Kindle eBook format)

As you can see, of my first three books, one published as recent as December 2011,
and my first paperback was released way back in 2006. As pleased as I am with
some of my Top 100 category rankings, none of the first three paperbacks or Kindle
eBooks I published on Amazon.com achieved an "overall ranking" that was less than
five-figures or 10,000.

Until yesterday.

My latest Amazon Kindle eBook, The Possibility of Sex, had an overall ranking as
high as #5,973 and two "Top 100" category rankings as high as #7 ("Sex")
and#28 ("Interpersonal Relations") on Friday, October 5, 2012. I would have never,
ever predicted that. No way. WOW. The eBook was just released on Thursday
afternoon, October 4, 2012.

Will The Possibility of Sex now be my top bestseller? Only time will tell.

Am I "bragging" about my Amazon ranking? No. Because it was my followers,

friends, and supporters who purchased and downloaded copies of the new eBook
that contributed to the high Top 100 category ranking on Amazon. I could write what
I think is the best self-help book ever written, but if only ten people buy it and read
it ... oh well. Also, the Amazon.com rankings fluctuate each day, and many times,
even each hour. My eBook could have a ranking of #98,000 a week or two from now,
or a ranking of #980,000 a month or two from now if sales do not maintain.

So, my most sincere thanks goes first to the men who asked me a number of great
questions related to women, and answering many of those questions I received
allowed me to accumulate enough content to write more than one hundred pages for
this latest eBook.

If the sales keep up, I will surely publish this book as a paperback and probably
release it sometime in December 2012 or January 2013 (this is actually the first time
a Kindle eBook version of one of my books was available before the paperback
version; Usually, I release the paperback version first, then a few weeks later, the
Kindle eBook version)

All I have to say to those reading this right now: THANK YOU. I greatly appreciate
the support of my new eBook. Enjoy your week.
Male and female readers
respond to columnist's last
few articles and new eBook
Well, it's that time again.

If you are a regular reader and loyal follower of my column, you already know that
after every five-to-seven articles, I tend to feature responses I receive from my male
and female readers. Usually I receive these responses either from my personal
Email address (alanrogercurrie@modeone.net), or via my Facebookinbox.

Click here to read my previous edition(s) of "Feedback from Readers."

Per usual, I generally only highlight those responses from readers that fall into one of
these three categories:

1. A response that is representative of a strong disagreement to one or

more of the opinions I expressed in a previous article;

2. A response that is representative of a very strong agreement to one or

more of the opinions I expressed in a previous article;

3. A desire for further clarification and understanding to something I

expressed or asserted in a previous article.

[Note: Also per usual, all first names have been changed for the sake of anonymity,
and many questions and/or comments may have been edited, condensed or
paraphrased to some degree in order to either save space or correct spelling and
grammatical errors]

Email feedback in response to my article, "Many women have a talent for

reading a man's mind even before he opens his mouth"

From Delores Y.:

"I am one of your Facebook friends, and this is the third or fourth Examiner.com
article I have read of yours. Initially, I took this most recent article of yours to be
totally serious!! Then I quickly realized it was dripping with satire and sarcasm. LOL.

When I am in a purely social setting, and a man approaches me, I naturally assume
that he wants to have sex with me at some point. Whether it be that same day he
approached me, a week later, a month later, or beyond.
Related to your point in the article, I usually have no idea during my very first
conversation with a man if his interest is in long-term sex vs. short-term sex, or
monogamous sex vs. non-monogamous sex. If that is important enough to me, I tend
to ask a guy, 'What type of relationship are you looking for? Serious or casual?'

Even though I agreed with a lot of your points in the article, I am not so sure I would
want a man to make his interest in having sex with me known too overtly, too quickly,
or too bluntly. That would potentially turn me off. I would want him to be more subtle
about expressing his sexual interests. You seem to be more in favor of the
straightforward, extremely candid means of letting a woman know your sexual
desires and interests.

Can you explain to me why you think being overt and blunt works better than being
subtle and tactful? Curious."

Alan's response: My apologies for going immediately into "sales and marketing
mode," but I would recommend that you take time to read at least two of my
books: Mode One: Let the Women Know What You're REALLY Thinking, and my
most recent eBook, The Possibility of Sex: How Naive and Lustful Men are
Manipulated by Women Regularly. These two books will explain my thoughts in a
very lengthy and detailed manner.

The short version? Delores, let's say you were a stripper. And your objective was to
get as many men to agree to a lap dance with you within the time frame of your
given shift (let's say, 7pm - 1am). How would you approach each man seated or
standing in that strip club? How quickly and straightforwardly would you express to
these men that you wanted them to agree to a lap dance? What is the longest you
would converse with a man before you let him know that your primary reason for
talking to him was to get him to agree to a lap dance with you?

Similarly, let's say you had two male platonic friends. One named "Brian" and the
other named "Daniel." You were fond of both. You know both of these guys were
sincerely in the market for their next girlfriend and future wife. Got that? Okay good.
Now ... let's say you have two female acquaintances that you know just love to
'tease' men, toy with men, engage in 'head games' with men, and try to get a free
meal, a free movie, or a free concert ticket from a man if they can.

You soon overheard one of these women talking to Brian, and the other talking to
Daniel, and both women were giving these two men the misleading impression that
they were genuinely interested in being in a long-term relationship with these men,
when you know full well that they just want to play with these guys, and maybe get
the guys to treat them to lunch or dinner soon. As their friend, would you just stand
by and let those conversations unfold? Not saying anything?

The first scenario relates to why I wrote Mode One, and the second scenario relates
to why I wrote The Possibility of Sex. My book Mode One essentially asks the (male)
reader the question, "How long should you wait before letting a woman know what
your true desires, interests and intentions are ... especially if both time and money
are a factor in the equation?" Similarly, The Possibility of Sex asks the reader the
question, "How do you go about distinguishing the women who are genuinely
interested in you romantically and sexually vs. those women who are simply
'pretending' to be interested in you in order to motivate you to provide them with
flattering attention and/or spend money on them?"

Once you marinate on those questions I posed to you, and even more importantly,
you have read my books very thoroughly, you will clearly understand why I prefer to
verbally communicate my desires and interests to women in the manner that I do.
Mode One Baby. Make it happen.

Email feedback in response to my article, "Men and women have vastly

different attitudes toward casual sex and platonic friendship"

From Renee W.:

"Very few women I know are totally down with casual sex. Many women settle for
casual sex, but that is not really want they want. If a man is good in bed, and we are
attracted to him, then we always want him as our long-term exclusive lover. Always. I
have only had one-night stands with men who sucked in bed. I do know a few
women who had casual sex with a guy who was married or already had a girlfriend,
but deep-down, they wanted that guy to be their own (long-term) companion. Again,
they 'settled' for casual sex. That was not their preference. I don't have any
girlfriends who have said, 'Oooooh ... look at that stud over there! I just want to have
ONE NIGHT with him, and then be done with him! Just ONE NIGHT!' That is more of
a man's way of thinking. Women, generally speaking, don't think like that. If the d---
is good, we want it for a while. :)

As far as the platonic friend thing goes, I know that at least half of my male platonic
friends want to get in my pants. I know that. I just try to act like that desire does not
exist. Alan, admit it. You have a thing against platonic friendships between men and
women. I really get the impression that you just don't like them. And your 'tiers'??
Wow. Amusing. Of course, women and men alike are too multifarious to capture their
respective tendencies, behaviors, or perspectives with one broad stroke
(generalizations can be unhelpful, but difficult to avoid), but I personally took issue
with your description of the women's 'tiers.' I cannot say that I agreed with them."

Alan's response: I cannot agree with you that all women, or even the vast majority
of women, just "settle" for short-term and/or non-monogamous sex. I know many
women who are open to engaging in a one-night stand, a weekend fling, or some
other variation of casual sex. They simply were not looking for a husband, a
boyfriend, or even a very long-term "sex buddy."

That being said, I do think your comments validly represent a good number of
women. I even tell men, "If having nothing more than a one-night stand was your
choice, then that is okay. If it was the woman's choice not to have a second episode,
then nine times out of ten, she perceived you as not being very good in bed." I agree
with you that if a woman thinks a guy is enjoyable and satisfying in bed, she is going
to want to have sex with him for more than just one night or one weekend.

Very few friendships between men and women that are categorized as "platonic" are
genuinely platonic. I stand by everything I said in the article. Again, if you want to
know if your friendship is truly 'platonic' with a man, invite him to have no-strings
attached sex with you 2-3 times per month, every month (even if you don't really
mean it and just want to see what he is going to say). That male "friend" is either
going to a) immediately say "yes, let's do this!" b) he is going to go into a long
soliloquy about how he values you as a friend - blah, blah, blah - but when it comes
down to it, he's going to say, "yes, let's do this!" or c) he's going to say,
"Ewwwwwwww. That's like thinking about having sex with my sister. Gross." Only the
one who answers "c" is your true platonic friend for life.

Email feedback in response to my article, "The social programming of women

often leaves many men feeling confused and frustrated"

From Pierre R.:

"Great article Alan. I agree with everything you said. Women always treat men like
we are supposed to assume that all women are just alike.

Like you said, you can approach some women with an X-rated conversation, and
they will get turned on by that, and you can approach a different group of women
with the same type of conversation, and they would get turned off by your sexual
candor.

You're right. It is usually a man's mother that encourages him to be a nice guy and a
gentleman. Rarely is it the man's father. At least, not my father. Sadly, my father did
not give me much advice at all with women (which is what led me to your books!) I
think he just assumed I would figure out for myself what was the best way to
approach women and interact with them.

My mother on the other hand always offered me what she felt was good advice. You
know, the usual 'be nice, be polite, buy women flowers, treat them to dinner, blah,
blah, blah.' Her advice led me straight into a woman's friend zone more than a few
times.

Keep giving real world advice Alan. I very much appreciate your articles."

Alan's response: Thank you Pierre. I read this book recently entitled, 10 Mistakes
Men Make with Women and How to Avoid Them, which was written by a former
guest from my talk radio podcast program, Upfront & Straightforward with Alan
Roger Currie. Her name is Marni Kinrys. There were a lot of comments and
opinions Marni had in her book that I disagreed with, but there was one comment
that I agreed with 100%. In her book, Kinrys said, "There is no one 'right' thing to say
to a woman. You just have to say whatever it is that you really want to say to
women. Line up 10 guys in front of me, all saying the exact same thing and
guaranteed, I will feel a different reaction to each of them. Some Ill love, some Ill
hate and some will creep me out. Its not about what you say; its about the man
who says it. That's just how women are."

I totally agree. I can name times when I approached a woman, and said something
that I felt was "innocent" and "conventional," only to receive a negative response or
no response at all. Then, other times, I can think of instances where I approached a
woman, and said something really bold, provocatively straightforward, and erotically
explicit, and had that woman smiling and ready to enthusiastically engage me in
conversation.

A man can say the same exact comment to five different women, and conceivably
get five different responses, depending on the woman's level of attraction to that
man, their mood, their past experiences with men, their expectations, their personal
values, and their social programming and cultural conditioning. You just never know.

I always say, "Never tell a woman what you think she 'wants to hear' .... tell a woman
what you want her to know."

Email feedback in response to my article, "Women, sex, and erotic

submission: Does 'no' always mean 'no'? Actually ... no."

From Lynette A.:

"I really, really, really enjoyed your article Sir! I have to confess, your article
described me to a tee Sir!

I am an intelligent, educated woman who is financially self-sufficient and successful

in my career. Many men tend to perceive me as 'intimidating' and very 'independent,'
but the truth of the matter is, I love to be dominated by men in bed. Absolutely love
it!!

When it comes to sex, I am a total 'sub' or 'bottom' as you described in your article.
The thing is, I do not like to tell men that (well, I am telling you now! So, you know
Sir). I love for men to just 'bring that side out me' without having prior knowledge that
I am a sub.

I think what you and other authors and dating experts need to explain to women (and
particularly, women of color) is that there is a big difference between being a sub and
being a man's personal doormat and object of abuse. Those are two totally different
concepts. I really believe many women want to reveal their erotically submissive side
to men of interest, but they are afraid of being mentally, emotionally, and physically
abused.

I thought your article was very well-written in pointing out that the issue of trust is
huge. Thank you Sir for your wisdom!"

Alan's response: After that article, I received about two dozen responses from
female readers lightheartedly referring to me as 'Sir,' and I won't lie ... I loved it. I
cannot reiterate enough to men the point you bring up, and what I already
emphasized in my article, which is that there is a huge difference between being
"erotically dominant" and being just flat-out "abusive." The former is enjoyable for
both parties involved, while the latter will lead to all sorts of regrettable repercussions
and consequences.

You are right about sistahs (and even some Latin women, Caucasian women, and
Asian women). Many women resist the idea of being "submissive" to a man. Not all
of their reluctance is related to a fear of abuse. Some of it is just pure egotistical
pride. Every woman has their own choice. I will simply say this: I have never known a
woman with a history of erotically submissive behavior that ever had a hard time
attracting and maintaining male companionship. Men are attracted to erotically
submissive women the way house flies are attracted to you-know-what. Enough
said.

Email feedback in response to my article, "Mastering the Art of Asking

Questions is the #1 key to getting to know someone"

From Terrell D.:

"I hate to say this Alan, but many times, I feel like I have slowly but surely become a
misogynist, or I am on my way toward that state of mind.

I am really sick and tired of the women I am meeting. Like your article said, when I
meet women, and I ask them questions that I think are relevant to getting to know
them, they will say, 'I don't know you well enough to answer that question.' Well, how
in the hell am I supposed to get to know these women if they refuse to answer my
questions?

So many women will say, 'I want a man to take time to get to know me,' but then all
they want to do, as you mentioned in your article, is talk about stupid stuff like a
recent movie they saw or what type of shoes they like. Stuff I could care less about.

I am about to give up and throw in the towel. Any advice? Losing hope."

Alan's response: Short answer ... read all of my books. If I say so myself, my
books have helped a lot of men improve their interpersonal communication skills with
women. Second piece of advice would be, start socializing with a better pool of
women. I get the impression that you are repeatedly going after the wrong women.

Women who have some degree of genuine romantic and sexual interest in you will
open up to you fairly quickly about who they really are, and what they really want
from you. The only women who will continue to talk about trivial, "stupid stuff," are
women who I describe in my latest book as "Timewasters." Leave those types alone.
Immediately.

Email feedback in response to my article, "What women should men avoid? Very
few authors offer advice on this subject"

From Carol Ann S.:

"I have yet to purchase your new book because it seems targeted at men, but I did
read the table of contents. I agree with most of the women you describe in Part Two
of the book (i.e., the gold diggers, drama queens, liars and cheaters, etc.), but I
disagree with your categorization of women as 'Timewasters' in Part One of the
book.
All women love to be flattered! What is wrong with that? All women love to be
entertained! What is so wrong with that? All women love nice gifts and a nice (free)
dinner at a nice restaurant! What is wrong with that?

So are you suggesting that I should always tell a man soon after I meet him that I
either definitely want to go to bed with him, or that I definitely do not want to go to
bed with him? That is too black and white for me. My relationships with men are
more organic than that. I take every new relationship with a man slowly, and as he
reveals more about himself, I come to a conclusion of whether or not I am really
interested in him romantically or not. What is wrong with that process?

Am I missing something? Maybe I need to actually read the book to be fairer in my

judgment of your opinions."

Alan's response: Until October 31, 2012, my eBook is only $3.99! How dare you
"debate" about buying it. That is a value meal at McDonald's. Yes, you need to
thoroughly read my book to totally understand where I am coming from as far as my
categorization of certain women as 'Timewasters.'

Look above, and read my response to "Delores." Particularly, the second scenario in
my response to her. Then, you will get a better idea of why I have formed the strong
opinions that I have.

There is nothing wrong with a woman wanting flattering attention from a man, but
when you throw out sexually provocative and highly flirtatious signals to a man ...
knowing deep-down that you have no real desire to be in a relationship with that man
or have sex with that man .... then that is representative of being misleading and
manipulative.

This is why you have men like "Terrell" (from above) developing bitter and resentful
feelings toward women.

Have you ever had a man give you the impression that he wanted to be in a long-
term monogamous "boyfriend-girlfriend" relationship with you, but then, after you had
sex with him for a few days or a few weeks, all of the sudden, you never heard from
that man again? If you have experienced this, how did that make you feel? I bet you
felt 'used,' misled, and played.

If not you, maybe your sister or one of your close girlfriends has experienced that
scenario. Here is the thing about many men: In the same way women tend to feel
'used' when a man exclusively hooks up with them for sex, and nothing else, men
tend to feel 'used' when women hook up with them for every reason BUT sex. This is
one of the differences between the general mindset of many men and many women
that I have identified, based on conversations over the years with members of both
genders.

Just because you want to 'take your time to get to know someone' does not mean
that one's sexual desires, interests, and intentions should not be discussed in the
early stages of your interactions with a man. I have had instances where I met a
woman in say, mid-to-late December, and we did not end up having sex for the first
time until February, March or April. Even though we took time to get to know one
another better, the woman still let me know early on that she was interested in
having sex with me.

And if we move from long-term monogamous sex to short-term non-monogamous

(casual) sex, how much do you really need to know about a man or woman? I mean,
really. As I say in my book, I do not really need to spend days, weeks, or months
"getting to know a woman" in order to come to a conclusion about whether or not I
want to have sex with a woman. I only take time to get to know women to determine
if they are worth spending time with non-sexually. I really only need about 5-15
minutes to determine if a woman is a prime candidate to have sex with.

Real talk.

Yes, my latest book is primarily for the fellas .... but you will enjoy it too 'Carol Ann.'

Well, folks, that is all for this edition of "Feedback from Readers." If you ever want to
respond to my articles in a "non-public" manner, please write me at my Email
address (above, at the beginning of the article) or via Facebook.

Whether you agree with my opinions, or often disagree, I always appreciate you
reading my articles.
What the Petraeus Affair
says about the sexual
behavior of men and
women
Some discussions I have related to dating and relationships provoke heated debates
with other men, and other discussions I engage in about issues related to love and
sex tend to cause more women to vehemently disagree with one or more of my
strong opinions.

There is at least one strong opinion I have expressed that provokes frowns,
disagreements, and harsh criticisms from men and women alike. What opinion of
mine provokes such reactions?

Emotions - and more specifically, feelings of "love" - should never be allowed

to enter into a sexual relationship that is not between a husband and wife, or
between a monogamous boyfriend and girlfriend.

I even wrote a variation of this quote in one or two of my previous articles in this very
column. I have been known to say, "Sex is sex, and love is love. The two are not
necessarily correlated to each other."

Many men do not care for this opinion of mine. Why? Because a good number of
men believe that the most effective way to seduce a woman, and get a woman to
agree to engage in one or more episodes of (casual) sex with them, is to make that
woman feel like there is an "emotional connection" present between the two.
Personally, I believe it is highly manipulative to give a woman the misleading
impression that you are "falling in love with her" just to get in her pants.

Many women, including some of my former casual sex partners, tend to criticize my
way of thinking because they like to always feel like they are "more than a piece of
meat" in the eyes of a man and that something about them is "special" in our eyes.

I say, both men and women need to get real. I mean, really, really real.

For starters, if former CIA Director David Petraeus is married, he should have never
allowed himself to have sex with Paula Broadwell in the first place. That is a given. I
am not one to throw stones at anyone from a modest glass house, because I will
publicly confess that I have had sex with a married woman before. Actually, I have
had sex with three different married women in my adult life (twice when I was in my
twenties, and once in my early thirties).
In retrospect, I regret being involved in those extramarital affairs with those women.
In my partial defense though, I was not the initiator with any of the three married
women. Instead, the married women who I had sex with were the aggressors. That
still does not make what I did right. Now, older and more mature, I believe too much
in the idea of "karma" to fool around with married women. Jealous husbands have
been known to murder men who are caught having sex with their wives.

Secondly, beyond the immoral and unethical nature of adultery, Ms. Broadwell
should have never allowed herself to become "emotionally attached" to Petraeus. I
have yet to read a direct quote where Petraeus has stated that he was "in love" with
Broadwell, and similarly, Ms. Broadwell does not have a public quote suggesting that
she had fallen in love with Petraeus. That said, you can tell by the sequence of what
happened that Broadwell had become emotionally attached to Petraeus. What is my
evidence?

Why send a "threatening e-mail message" to Petraeus' acquaintance, Jill Kelley,

warning her to stay away from Petraeus? Some would argue "that was Broadwell's
ego at work more so than her emotions." I say it was both. I firmly believe that
Broadwell began to feel that she was "very special" in the eyes of Petraeus, and that
she deserved the ranking of the #2 priority in his life next to the former CIA Director's
wife, Holly.

I have either witnessed, or heard about, too many of these scenarios playing out.
They never have a "happy ending." Adulterous affairs rarely, if ever
do. (ReadChapter Six in my latest book, The Possibility of Sex: How Naive and
Lustful Men are Manipulated by Women Regularly; I talk about women who are
"Man Thieves" & "wannabe mistresses")

A former casual sex lover once complained to me, "Alan ... sometimes, I don't like
the way you treat me. You treat me more like a 'fu** buddy' than a woman you truly
care about. And that irritates me and hurts my feelings." You might think I responded
with some comment that was 'soft' and empathetic along the lines of, "Oh
sweetheart ... that is so not true. I do care about you. I love spending time with you.
Just being in your presence makes me happy, and makes me feel all warm and
fuzzy inside." Yeah, riiiiiiiiiight.

That is the type of response a "smooth liar" and master manipulator would have
offered, such as a professional pickup artist. That is not my style at all. Instead, I
looked at her dead in her eyes and said, "You are not my girlfriend. Remember that.
You and I primarily, if not exclusively, share each other's company for the sake of
enjoyable, satisfying sex. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Either you're cool
with that, or we can break things off starting right now." She did not particularly care
for my response at the time, but I made my point clear. I had no desire to mislead
this woman, and toy with her emotions. In the long run, she respected me for my
unapologetic candor.

I have said this before, and I will say it again: I can have sex with a woman two
hundred times and never, ever develop any sort of "emotional bond" with that
woman. That does not mean I treat all of my casual sex partners like a 'piece of
meat,' but I am very real and bluntly honest with them. Sex is sex, and love is
love. Most men who I have been friends with in my adult life have said the same
thing, if only privately. For the vast majority of men, there is no correlation between
enjoyable, satisfying sex and feelings of "love," with the exception of maybe with that
man's wife or long-term girlfriend.

Men: Quit lying to women, and making them believe you are "falling for them" when
you really just enjoy experiencing pleasurable orgasms with them. Lying to women
regularly and misleading women about how you really feel about them is
representative of emotional manipulation. One day, you are going to toy with the
emotions of the wrong woman, and she is going to put a bullet in your skull.

Women: Quit being so damn naive and delusional. If you believe your husband is
truly in love with you, fine. If you believe your long-term boyfriend is truly in love with
you, okay. But if you believe that the guy who only hooks up with you four or five
times per month when he is horny has profound feelings for you, you are setting
yourself up for heartbreak and frustration. If a man has engaged in intercourse with
you for weeks, months, or years, but you have yet to earn the title of "girlfriend,"
"fiance," or "wife," then 99.9% chance, that man has no profound emotional feelings
for you. Wake up.

Why do you think many men pay money for the companionship of street prostitutes,
professional Call Girls, and upscale Erotic Escorts? Among other reasons, they want
sex with women without having to worry about the idea of developing and/or
maintaining an "emotional attachment" with women, and all that comes with that.
Guys who pay for sex just want enjoyable, satisfying sex. That is it. End of
story. No cuddling, no "small talk," no gifts or cards on Valentine's Day.

Even men who are unwilling to pay for sex feel this way. Most men pursue casual
sex with women because they really have no interest or motivation toward spending
a significant amount of time with that particular woman in a non-sexual manner. Men
want to watch a movie and have dinner with women who they really care about. If we
don't care about you, a movie and dinner is just a manipulative tactic to get in your
pants. Don't like reading this as a woman? Tough. Grow up and get real. If you are a
man reading this, and now you're "mad" at me for telling the truth about how we men
really think? Tough. Quit trying to get over on women.

Did Broadwell think Petraeus was going to leave his wife for her? I have no idea for
sure. My gut feeling and strong opinion is that if Broadwell had treated her affair with
Petraeus as "just sex" and nothing more, more-than-likely, their affair would have
never made its way into the microscope and scrutiny of the national news media.

Some women have said to me, "Well Alan, you know as well as I do ... us women
are emotional!! We release a hormone in our bodies that is called oxytocin, and this
causes us to bond with men who produce powerful orgasms for us!! We can't help
that we fall for the guys that we have fantastic sexual chemistry with!!"

Not true. You can help it.

Two recommendations for women:

1) Only allow profound emotions to be combined with sex when you are involved in a
long-term monogamous relationship with a man;

2) If you are going to indulge in some sort of short-term and/or non-monogamous

sexual relationship with a man, just enjoy the sex and leave your emotions (and ego)
out of the equation.

You have been warned.

If you choose not to adhere to my warning, then at minimum, prepare yourself for
future heartbreak. At maximum, prepare to see yourself on television and in
newspapers like Paula Broadwell.

Either way, you were warned.

Advice to men? A good friend and fraternity brother of mine who everyone simply
refers to as "Ferg" once said this to me in 1999: "Men make their absolute dumbest
decisions when they are extremely bored, desperate for money, or when their d*ck is
hard."

Yep, yep. Just ask any man who lost his career as a result of an adulterous affair.

#realtalk
Suzy Favor Hamilton's
"double life" is typical of a
sexually duplicitous woman
As many of my readers who are very familiar with my books, and already have
knowledge of what prompted me to first create my Mode One principles, you
probably know that my first major "epiphany" regarding the sexual behavior of
women came from an adult film (i.e., porn movie) that I viewed the summer in-
between the end of my senior year in high school and the beginning of my freshman
year in college at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana.

The film was entitled, Talk Dirty to Me, and it starred a legendary adult film actor
named John Leslie as a slacker womanizer named "Jack" who had a knack for
approaching women, and boldly expressing his desire to have sex with them in a
highly self-assured, upfront, erotically explicit, and straight-to-the-point manner.

When I watched that film, two things stood out that would forever alter the manner in
which I viewed male-female interactions:

1) Before watching Talk Dirty to Me, I never thought a man could get away with
conversing with a woman in his first conversation with her while using XXX-rated
language without her walking away from him, or having her abruptly end the
conversation in disgust; The reality is, beginning with my early twenties, I have
literally engaged in thousands of first-time conversations with women that included
some degree of erotically explicit and sexually provocative language and content;

2) Before viewing Talk Dirty to Me, I had no idea what it meant for a woman to be
'sexually duplicitous'; in high school, I naively evaluated all women on "face value."
In other words, if a woman gave me the impression she was an erotically
conservative 'prude' type, I went ahead with that perception as a valid one. If a
woman harshly criticized one or more aspects of my personality or behavior, I took
that as a sign that she had no romantic or sexual interest in me whatsoever.

Actually, when I really think about it, even before viewing that film (which GQ
Magazine once ranked as one of the Top Ten best adult films ever made), my first
real exposure to the idea of 'sexual duplicity' happened at a party during the middle
of my senior year. I remember sharing the company of some male friends of mine
from another high school in Gary, Indiana, and they kept asking me if I had engaged
in sexual activity with this girl who had a huge crush on me who I will refer to as
"Yolanda." At least two or three times, I said, "No fellas ... I have not had sex with
Yolanda." Later, I added, "Besides ... Yolanda is a 'good girl.' She doesn't seem like
the type that is having sex yet. She dresses very conservatively and carries herself
like a church-going good girl." The guys fell out laughing. I mean, they were laughing
hysterically.
The guys just shook their heads and stared at me with an expression of, "Alan ... you
are so naive. Bless your heart." They went on to say that 'Yolanda' was not only
sexually active, but that she was very sexually active, as in promiscuous. They went
on to name at least three or four guys I knew who had been with her sexually. I know
some women reading this are probably saying, "That is shameful how young men
'kiss and tell' about a woman's sexual business!!" Well, that's real life (women 'kiss
and tell' too .... and usually with more detail!)

In high school, I will not deny that I had a certain degree of navet when it came to
women and their sexuality. I frequently made the mistake of "judging a book by its
cover." In other words, if a woman dressed conservatively and carried herself in what
I perceived as a "classy" manner, I would categorize her as being a virgin, or at
minimum, only engaging in sexual activity with a long-term boyfriend who she was
deeply in love with. The only girls who I thought were engaging in kinky, casual,
short-term non-monogamous sex were the girls who wore short, tight skirts, wore a
lot of makeup, and behaved in a highly flirtatious and sexually provocative manner.

Watching Talk Dirty to Me changed all that. Forever. Without getting into too much
detail about the full storyline of the film, in the opening scene of the story, Jack's
friend "Lenny" (adult actor Richard Pacheco) sprains his ankle, and has to go to the
doctor. The physician who sees him ends up being this very attractive blonde who
carries herself in somewhat of a prim, proper, and pretentious manner. Minutes later,
in the office lobby, Jack starts working his linguistic magic on her, and soon, he is
having sex with her in her office.

That scene blew my mind. The thing is the female physician does not give in to his
confident and pleasantly persistent charms too quickly. Initially, she feigns as if she
is totally turned off and offended by his language and his overtly sexual advances. At
one point, she even threatens to call the police on him. Jack is totally unfazed. He
remains cool, calm, and collected, and eventually he breaks her down and gets her
to reciprocate his sexual desires and interests.

Some might argue, "Well Alan, that was a movie. It was written in the script for her to
eventually give in to John Leslie's character." That is what I initially thought too. Until
I tried this type of conversational behavior for myself in real life interactions with
women, and experienced many of the same type of responses from women that the
fictional character of 'Jack' had with that seemingly 'prudish' female physician. The
rest, as they say, is history. The concept of "Mode One Behavior" was born.

The reality is this: Mode One Behavior would not really be necessary, or beneficial, if
it were not for women who were sexually duplicitous. I refer to these women in my
books as "Wholesome Pretenders." I remember I had a speaking engagement in
Chicago in January 2006. I made the comment that "I believe at least fifty to sixty
percent of all single women are Wholesome Pretenders." Immediately this woman
interrupted me to disagree. I just knew she was going to argue that the percentage I
asserted should be lower. Instead, to my surprise, she raised the percentage. She
said, "I believe 90-95% of all single women are Wholesome Pretenders."

Most women love sex just as much as men do. A good number of women are just as
kinky and/or promiscuous, if not more so, than many men are. Since the advent of
the Internet, it has been documented that almost just as many women now watch
some form of internet porn as men do.

My bottom line point is simply that the story that came out about Suzy Favor
Hamilton living a "double life" as a high priced erotic escort did not surprise me
in the least bit. Not at all. I have come to expect this type of behavior from many
women. I have been known to say, "One man's wife or girlfriend is another man's
kinky sex buddy." Or in this case, another man's $600 per hour erotic escort.

The vast majority of women are taught and brainwashed to behave as "innocent,
wholesome good girls." For most women, that is not the reality of their inner
sexuality. Most women present a believable faade of being 'prudish,' but that's all it
is ... a faade. A faade that has the primary objective of preventing them from being
labeled by self-righteous and highly judgmental men and women with very
unflattering terms such as "whore" or "slut." No one, and especially women, likes to
be unfairly judged or labeled.

I have a close friend and frat brother who I refer to as "J.K." that frequently says, "All
women have a kinky, freaky side inside of them. All of them. It's just a matter of if you
are the right man to provoke them to reveal that side to you." No truer words have
ever been spoken.

Now, the whole world knows that Suzy Favor Hamilton is not as "innocent" or as
"wholesome" as she pretended to be to her family, friends, and fans. Now, they all
know she has a kinky, freaky side. She even earned some nice compensation as a
result of her kinky, freaky side.

I bet all of her close friends and relatives are shocked and speechless.

Not me.

Not at all.

I do not know Suzy ... have never met her. But I knew she had a kinky, freaky side
hiding underneath all along.

All women do. You just have to know how to talk that talk at the right time in the right
place.

Happy Holidays.
If you treat all women as if
they are "special" to you,
then none of them are
Notre Dame wanted to be considered the best team in college football. So did
Alabama, as well as a good number of other NCAA Division I schools, such as
Georgia, Oregon, Texas A&M, among others. Because all of us have egos, we all
want to be considered "#1" in some area of our lives, but the reality is, none of us
can be #1 in everyone's eyes.

This relates to the problem I have with men and women (and particularly women)
when it comes to dating and relationships. For example, I was a featured speaker at
a "Relationship Chat" last fall, and this woman said to me at one point, "Even when
I decide to just have casual sex with a man, I still want to be treated special." Really
now. I had another woman express a similar comment to me during a phone
conversation just last week.

A high school English teacher by the name of David McCullough, Jr., attracted
attention last June when he told a group of graduating seniors, "You are not special.
You are not exceptional. Even if you are one in a million, there are 6.8 billion people
on this planet." Many applauded his straightforward realism while others harshly
criticized his comments and suggested that his commentary had the potential to
undermine the self-esteem of those teenage boys and girls.

Here is when I think a woman deserves the label of "special" when it comes to
romance and sex: When you are the first girlfriend of a man who he has even
remotely thought about a) proposing to; b) remaining sexually monogamous with
indefinitely; and/or c) being excited over the prospect of you being pregnant with his
child and you two raising children together. If you do not fall into one or more of
those three categories (and particularly, "a" and "b"), then you are really not 'special'
in his eyes.

My simple "formula" for a good relationship is talking and exchanging orgasms. If

you are a woman OR a man, if you are not your companion's favorite
conversationalist ... or favorite lover ... there is a greater than fifty percent chance
that your relationship is going to come to an end at some point in the not-too-distant
future. At bare minimum, your companion is going to "step out on you" in order to
engage in more entertaining conversations with another man and/or more enjoyable
and satisfying sex with another man.

When you are in a relationship with someone that you never get tired of talking to,
and you never get tired of having sex with, this is when you can classify yourself as
being involved in a "good, healthy relationship." I personally have never met a
couple that is currently involved in a very long-lasting marriage or relationship that
did not enjoy conversing with each other regularly, and who did not enjoy sexually
satisfying their spouses / companions regularly.

Many women I am acquainted with say to me all the time, "Alan, you seem to be
more into casual sex than long-term monogamous relationships. Why is that? Are
you against marriage?" I am not against marriage at all. My simple answer would be
I have yet to meet a woman that both a) motivates me to want to engage in
conversation with her on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis, and b) excites me so
much sexually to the point where I want to have sex with no other woman but her. I
think many men who are currently bachelors would echo my sentiments.

I have met a handful of women over the years who fell into category "A," but not "B."
I have met another handful (or two) of women who fell into category "B," but not "A."

Here are my assertions:

1) If you enjoy talking to a woman regularly, but there is only an average (or worse,
less-than-average) degree of sexual attraction, chemistry, and compatibility present,
then you are better off just maintaining a platonic friendship.

2) If you find that having sex with a woman is mind-blowing and totally satisfying, but
when you are around this woman non-sexually, she either a) bores you to death
or b) irritates you to no end, then that is when this woman should never be elevated
to anything greater than just a "casual sex partner" or "fu** buddy."

The main obstacle is, men usually have a problem with Alternative Option #1, and
women usually have a problem with Alternative Option #2. End result? Many men
and women enter into relationships and/or marriages that they know deep down are
not going to be enjoyable, satisfying, or long-lasting.

A man admitted this to me just yesterday. I was having breakfast at a restaurant, and
an older gentleman (I believe he said he was in his early sixties) overheard me
mention that I was a book author and public speaker, so he decided to come to my
booth, and ask me questions about my career. Later, he started pouring his heart out
to me about the woman who is about to divorce him.

He placed fifty percent of the blame on her for the divorce, and fifty percent on
himself. I found that rare, because most people usually put most if not all of the
blame on their spouse / companion for a failed marriage or relationship. He
confessed that his soon-to-be-former-wife told him upfront that she looked at him
more as "Sugar Daddy" material than true husband material, but he ignored those
early comments of hers. On the other hand, he criticized his wife for cheating on him
throughout the latter half of their marriage.

I asked him bluntly, "If she told you straight-up that her primary interest in you was
your financial generosity, why did you propose to her in the first place? And once you
found out she was having sex with other men, why weren't you the first one to file for
divorce instead of her?" The gentleman said, "I felt like most men in her life, based
on my conversations with her, had treated her like nothing more than a 'nice piece of
ass.' I wanted to be the guy to treat her different. I wanted to be viewed as a guy who
would treat her special." In some circles, other men would label the gentleman I
conversed with a "Captain-Save-A-Ho" (fairly or unfairly).

Not all women deserve to be treated "special." Not all men deserve to be treated
"special." I believe there are only a handful of men and women you will meet in your
life that you will experience a true "special" romantic connection with. Everyone else
is simply ... everyone else.

I will never treat a woman who I want nothing more than a platonic friendship with
like she's "girlfriend" material or 'wifey' material. Same goes for a woman who I want
nothing more than short-term non-monogamous casual sex with. If that means I end
up being called a "jerk" or an "a--hole," or something similar, so be it.

Again, if you treat everyone special, then essentially no one is really "special."

You want to be special? As alluded to above, work on your conversation skills and
your bedroom skills. Everything else is secondary (at least, initially) to those two
priorities. Because if you are not up to par in those two areas, and someone is telling
you that you are "special," 99.9% chance, they are lying to you.

The only thing worse than others lying to you is you being guilty of lying to yourself.

Just ask the gentleman I met in the restaurant.

You are (potentially) "special" to SOMEONE ... but not EVERYONE. Remember that.

Happy New Year.

Ten of the most highly
invalid beliefs (myths)
related to attraction and
dating
I recently engaged in a three-way conversation with two women I know, and they
were both teasing me that I was no longer the "young spring chicken" that my mind
and ego leads me to believe I am. Yes, my birthday is coming up on Sunday, March
3rd (I accept all gifts and cash, thank you!), and many times, I cannot believe how
fast the last fifteen to twenty years have passed by.

There is an old adage that says, "with age comes wisdom," and so my two female
friends asked me the difference in how I look at issues related to love, sex,
attraction, seduction, dating and relationships now versus ten years ago, twenty
years ago, or even thirty years ago.

As with many aspects of your life, as you get older, you tend to realize that much of
the advice that was fed to you as a pre-teen, teenager, or young adult turns out to be
total bullsh** by the time you are thirty-five or forty. I truly believe that this is why so
many senior citizens are "cranky" and "grouchy." It is my speculation that many of
these men and women in their seventies and eighties spent the majority of their
youth holding on to beliefs and attitudes that proved over time to be highly invalid,
and in many cases, just flat out untrue, and it caused them to develop bitterness and
resentment later on in life.

As the conversation progressed, these two lady friends of mine asked me the
specific question, "Alan, given that you have written a number of books that offer
advice that 'goes against the grain' of conventional wisdom, what beliefs did you
used to believe were true that you no longer believe are?" I offered a couple of
responses, but I told them that I would write an article for everyone to see where I
identify my personal "Top Ten Myths / Invalid Beliefs" related to love, sex,
attraction, seduction, dating and relationships based on my own personal
experiences, observations, conversations with others, and various advice offered to
me from others.

I am going to divide my Top Ten list into three categories:

A) Three (3) invalid beliefs commonly held by men in regard to their behavior toward
women . . .

B) Three (3) invalid beliefs commonly held by women in regard to their behavior
toward men . . .
C) Four (4) invalid beliefs that many members of both genders have allowed to
influence and impact their behavior toward members of the opposite sex

Category "A": The Top Three Most Invalid Beliefs maintained by many men in
society that in worst case scenario, "hurt" them ... and at minimum, failed to "help"
improve their love life, sex life, or overall social life:

1) If you exhibit the behavior of a classy, polite, well-mannered "gentleman"

toward women, your popularity with women will significantly increase.

Comment: Realizing this belief was total hogwash was the #1 basis for me writing
my first paperback, Mode One: Let the Women Know What You're REALLY
Thinking. I believe in being a "gentleman" when it comes to such nice gestures as
opening a door for a woman, or helping an elderly lady across the street, but when it
comes to attracting and seducing women sexually, I believe the entire concept of
being a "gentleman" is extremely overrated.

The vast majority of men who I have met over the years who were known for being
an A+ "gentleman" with women experienced a high degree of platonic popularity with
women, but rarely if ever were those same men extremely popular with women
romantically and/or sexually. Don't believe me? Okay ... name five single
heterosexual men who you know personally who have maintained these two
reputations for at least ten years or longer: a) a reputation for being a kind, well-
mannered, considerate 'gentleman' or 'nice guy' toward women, and b) a reputation
for being a prolific serial monogamist and/or womanizer.

My money says you will be hard pressed to name even two, let alone five. Now
some will misinterpret my comments to mean that I am suggesting that all men act
like "jerks" toward women instead of "gentlemen." Nope. I am saying ... be your real
self. Some women will like it, some women will dislike it, and that is the way life
works.

2) If you bring up the subject of sex too quickly or too frequently with a woman
you just met, 99% chance she will perceive you as a 'horny jerk' and you will
get criticized, insulted, and ultimately rejected.

Comment: I hate to always shamelessly plug my books in my articles, but the reality
is, this invalid belief was the #1 basis for me writing my third paperback,Oooooh . . .
Say it Again: Mastering the Fine Art of Verbal Seduction and Aural Sex. When I
do workshops and speaking engagements, I always have a number of men that will
bring this up. "Alan, won't expressing a desire to have sex with a woman in your very
first conversation with her turn her off? Won't she look at you as horny, desperate, or
simply a jerk?"

When thinking of all of the women I have had sex with in my adult life, I would
estimate that with no less than three-fourths of these women, I let them know I
wanted to have sex with them by the end of my very first conversation. To take it a
step further, when it comes to women that I knew from the beginning that all I wanted
was nothing more than short-term non-monogamous "casual" sex with, that
percentage probably goes up to ninety-five percent.
It is my strong belief that of all the "fears" that men have related to conversing with
women and generally interacting with women, the fear of bringing up sex too quickly
or too frequently is arguably their most prominent fear. This fear, and invalid belief #1
(the notion of being a "gentleman") go hand-in-hand.

3) The number one key to attracting romantic and sexual attention from
women is to be successful in your career, and to have lots of money. You
cannot attract women being broke and/or unemployed.

Comment: I tell my male readers and coaching clients this all the time: Career
success and financial success is arguably the most overrated factor to attracting
women with a genuine interest in you. The key words are "genuine interest."

If I won $100 million in the lottery, surely I would get a lot more attention from
materialistic "gold digger" types. There is a difference though between attracting a
woman who wants to 'use you' for your money, and receiving attention from a
woman who just genuinely enjoys your company.

I have met many men in my life who were broke and unemployed for a number of
weeks, months, or even a year or two that still got laid regularly. I have met other
men in my life that had good jobs, a nice car, a nice house, and money in the bank
whose love life, sex life, and social life was virtually non-existent. In 1990, I was a
struggling actor and stand-up comedian, and for most of the year I was damn near
broke, I never had a 9-to-5 type job, and I had not earned my undergraduate college
degree yet. Yet, given all of those "undesirable factors" in my life, I had sex with
approximately fifteen different attractive, sexy women. I had dozens of other women
giving me attention.

Again, I do not want people to misinterpret my words. I am not saying that it is better
to be broke and unemployed than it is to be gainfully employed and self-sufficient. I
am not suggesting that at all. But the reality is this: If a woman never gave you any
attention when you were earning $40,000 per year, but now that you are earning
$140,000 per year, she calls you every day? C'mon son. C'mon. That is not
representative of 'genuine' interest on her part.

Category "B": The Top Three Most Invalid Beliefs maintained by many women in
society that in worst case scenario, "hurt" them ... and at minimum, failed to "help"
improve their love life, sex life, or overall social life:

1) If you present yourself as a chaste, erotically conservative "good girl," you

will have a much better chance at attracting a husband or at least a long-term
romantic companion.

Comment: Most women who are thirty-five years of age or older know by now that
this belief is a joke. I mentioned in one of my previous articles that when I think of
women I went to high school and college with, and I think of the women who had a
reputation for being a "prudish good girl" and I think of the women who had a
reputation for being 'kinky' and/or promiscuous, I know more women in the latter
category who are now happily married with children than I do women from the
'prudish' category.
There is a big difference between being "sexually selective" and being "prudish."
Most men love women who are the former, but not really the latter. Men want to
enjoy themselves sexually, and it is very challenging to enjoy yourself sexually with a
woman with very prudish attitudes toward sex.

Bottom line: There are women who are strippers and porn stars who have boyfriends
and husbands, and they are women who are Sunday School teachers and regular
church-going gals who have been single for years. Go figure.

2) Always let men know that you are a 'strong, independent' woman, and never
give in to a man's desire to have you behave in a 'submissive' manner,
because if you do, you will suffer nothing less than verbal, emotional, and
physical abuse.

Comment: On my talk radio podcast program, Upfront & Straightforward with

Alan Roger Currie, I have had a number of discussions about the idea of women
being 'submissive' to their husbands or boyfriends. Most of my emphasis tends to be
specifically on "erotic submission," but nonetheless, many of my discussions have
caused a number of my female listeners to get riled up.

I notice a lot of women these days have a very adverse reaction to the idea of being
submissive to a man. For a lot of women, being "submissive" is synonymous with
being a "doormat." Nothing could be further from the truth.

I watched a special on the OWN Network, entitled "Our America: Shades of Kink"
hosted by journalist Lisa Ling. Ms. Ling interviewed men and women who were into
very "kinky" forms of sex in their relationships. One comment that was made by one
woman was, "A lot of women think if you are submissive, that means you have no
power. That is so untrue. Actually, it is the sub, or 'bottom,' who has the most power.
They can decide at anytime not to submit anymore."

I say in my book, Say it Again, that the woman always has the final say-so in matters
related to sex. Always. The only exception, of course, would be instances of rape,
date rape, and sexual assault. Those dreadful experiences aside, a woman is always
the "decision maker' when it comes to sex. How much more power does a woman
need?

Women need to realize ... there is a difference between being "strong" and "bossy." I
do not know too many men, unless they are passive and submissive in their own
right, who want to be in a relationship with a "bossy" woman. A bossy woman is as
much a turn on to the average man as much as a weak, wimpy, indecisive man is a
turn on to the average woman. We want a woman who is 'strong' in the sense that
unexpected episodes of adversity or the everyday challenges of life do not cause her
to have a nervous breakdown, but no man wants a "second mother" as a girlfriend or
wife. With all due respect to Book Author Sherry Argov, not all men "love bitches."

3) You should never make the "first move" with men. Men should always make
the first move. If a woman makes the first move, she will be perceived as
promiscuous or desperate. Never pursue men ... always let them pursue you.
Comment: This is a belief that probably was fairly valid up until about the 1960s,
1970s, or even the 1980s. In the 21st Century? This belief is very invalid. As a
woman in the New Millennium, you can no longer wait around for all men to come to
you. You have to be proactive and make things happen in your love life, sex life, and
overall social life.

I love women who are assertive. So do many other men I have conversed with over
the years. There is a difference between being "assertive" and "aggressive." The
latter actually can be a big turn off to many men, but not the former. An example of
being 'assertive' would be a woman approaching a man at a party or social event,
introducing herself, and at the end of the conversation, presenting that man with a
business card or "contact card" and telling him to stay in touch.

On the other hand, an example of being "aggressive" would be if giving a man your
telephone number, and then proceeding to tell him what day to call you, how often to
call you, and then if he fails to call you on the day you expected him to, you go out of
your way to get in contact with him in order to admonish him for not calling you. The
latter would turn most men off.

If you meet a man who attracts you, let him know that you welcome him to stay in
touch with you and communicate with you on a regular basis. Then, leave the ball in
his court and let him take over from there.

Category "C": The Top Four Most Invalid Beliefs maintained by both men AND
women in society that in worst case scenario, "hurt" them ... and at minimum, failed
to "help" improve their love life, sex life, or overall social life:

1) You should never put too much emphasis on "looks" and physical
appearance. What matters is your personality, your behavior, and your moral
character. Emphasizing looks causes you to be perceived as shallow and
superficial.

Comment: For me, looks and sex are two things that should never be
"overemphasized" or "underemphasized." You should never select a new boyfriend,
girlfriend, husband or wife solely and specifically based on their physical
appearance ... but at the same time ... you can never totally discount the importance
of one's physical appearance either.

For years, it was believed that men placed ten times more emphasis on a woman's
looks than the average woman placed on a man's looks. The results of many
surveys over the last decade or two have proved that to be a
myth. Match.com conducted a survey a few years ago and found that women not
only put as much emphasis on looks as men do, but from the neck-on-down, they
actually place a tad bit more emphasis on men's looks than men do.

When you think of the automobile you drive, would you say the appearance of it is
more important than how well the engine or transmission works? Of course not. That
being said though, would you want to drive an automobile that had a number of rust
stains and bullet holes in the exterior? I doubt it. Most of us want the "total
package" (i.e., a companion with a good looking physical appearance, intelligent,
good sense of humor, good moral character and integrity, etc.). No "one attribute"
should ever 'make or break' your interest in someone. Your attraction should always
be based on the collective sum of what a man or woman has to offer.

Always strive to be the "best you" in terms of your health, fitness, and physical
appearance.

2) Being married or involved in a long-term romantic relationship always offers

more happiness and satisfaction than being single. No one wants to be single
indefinitely.

Comment: Some men and women naively believe that getting involved in a long-
term romantic relationship, or getting married, will be the key solution to all of their
love life problems, sex life problems, and social life problems. For some men and
women ... this is a valid belief. For others? Anything but.

Just like I would say not all human beings were meant to be vegetarians, I would
make the argument that not all men and women were meant to be indefinitely
involved in long-term monogamous sexual relationships with members of the
opposite sex.

I have known friends and acquaintances of mine who were happier before they got
married than they were afterwards. I have known men who felt nagged and stressed
out once they got married. I have known women who felt bored, ignored, or just plain
miserable after exchanging wedding vows with their husband.

On the other hand, I know many men and women who absolutely love being single.
They would not trade the single life for the world. Particularly men. I know some men
who have absolutely no desire whatsoever to become a woman's husband or long-
term boyfriend.

Plain and simple, marriage and/or monogamy is not for everyone.

3) Never be a "control freak." No one wants to date a man or woman who is a

'control freak.' Always be a person who is willing to compromise with others.

Comment: If you do your research on many directors in the feature-film industry, or

many coaches in the professional sports industry, you will find that many successful
directors and head coaches were labeled as "control freaks." Most of the top chefs in
the world tend to be perceived as control freaks. Same with many fashion designers.
What some people refer to as a "control freak," I tend to categorize as men and
women who know exactly and specifically what results they want, and they are not
willing to settle for any results that do not meet their expectations.

I remember when I was in graduate school at Indiana University in Bloomington,

Indiana, I took two "personality tests" as part of a class I was enrolled in. One of the
things that was revealed from my tests was that I have a tendency to be a bit of a
control freak. I will confess: I do not like having a direct "boss." I generally love being
self-employed, and doing what I want to do. Many of my positions, such as book
author, public speaker, talk radio host, and stand-up comedian have fallen into this
category.

It's like this: I know what I enjoy experiencing, and what I do not enjoy experiencing. I
know what I want, and what I do not want. For example, I love chicken wings (fried,
grilled, or baked!) and Peach Snapple. Why would I want to date a woman who
says, "Honey ... can't you give up chicken wings and Peach Snapple for two weeks
per month? For me??" Why would I want to do that? I would rather find a woman
who shares my love for wings and Peach Snapple. Same with movies. I love movies.
Why would I want to date a woman who wants me to "cut back" on watching
movies? I would rather just find a woman who shares my love for my movies.

There are definitely certain situations where you should be a "compromising" person,
but in many instances, I think the idea of being Mr. Overly-willing-to-compromise
(or Ms. Overly-willing-to-compromise) is highly overrated.

4) Never have sex with a member of the opposite sex who you are "good
friends" with. Sex complicates things, invites 'drama' and unnecessary
arguments, and just generally ruins whatever 'friendship' you had. If you are
friends with someone, keep it that way.

Comment: The most glaring evidence that this belief is totally invalid is simply the
now popular terminology used by both men and women entitled "Friends-with-
Benefits." (FWB)

I can name at least a handful of "female friends" who I engaged in regular, semi-
regular, or occasional sex with that I never experienced any major "drama" or heated
arguments. Many women tend to offer the argument, "Well, once I have sex with a
man, my emotions get involved." If you are a woman, and you feel that way, that is
on you. That is your choice. Do not present this argument as if you speak for ALL
women.

If all women could only have sex with men who they were emotionally attached to,
there would be no such thing as street prostitutes, professional Call Girls, or upscale
Erotic Escorts. I can think of a number of women who I have had sex with once,
twice, or three or more times where the woman and I never allowed emotions to get
in the way of a great friendship.

If a man is mature, and a woman is emotionally mature, then a "friends-with-benefits"

relationship can work. For men and women who tend to experience a lot of jealous
and/or possessive feelings toward sex companions, then a FWB relationship will not
work. It's that simple.

I would offer the very strong argument that NOT having sex can also potentially
"ruin" a friendship. And I am not really being facetious in stating this. Being serious, I
personally have engaged in far more heated arguments and animosity filled "falling
outs" with female friends who I never had sex with than I have with those I had sex
with. For example, in 2012, I fell out with at least two of my former female friends,
and these were women who I have never been physical or sexual with.
I predict many readers will agree with some of my Top Ten choices, while an equal
number of readers will disagree with one or more of my assertions, but I stand by all
of statements and opinions.

I want to hear from you! What are at least two or three "beliefs" or "attitudes" that you
"used to" maintain regarding love, sex, attraction, seduction, dating and relationships
that now, as you've grown older, you no longer view as truthful or valid?

Let me know!
Male and female readers agree and
disagree with columnist's last few
articles
Well ladies and gentleman, I present to you my 10th Edition of "Feedback from
Readers."

If you are a regular reader and loyal follower of my column, you already know that
after every five-to-seven articles, I tend to feature responses I receive from my
male and female readers. Usually I receive these responses either from my personal
Email address (alanrogercurrie@modeone.net), or via my Facebook inbox.

Click here to read my previous edition(s) of "Feedback from Readers."

Since my very first article on The Examiner.com in August of 2009, which of my

articles have provoked the most feedback from men and women?

Top 5 articles that have provoked the most feedback from women:

1) When you understand the Madonna / Whore Complex, you pretty much
understand men

Comment: Just the other day, I received yet another e-mail message regarding this
article. The vast majority of my female readers found this article of mine,
published on July 5, 2010, to be very enlightening.

2) Loneliness is sometimes the price for romantic perfectionism

Comment: This article actually grabbed the attention of many other bloggers and
women who wanted to re-publish it on their own websites, which I found
extremely flattering.

3) Men and women have vastly different attitudes toward casual sex and friendship

Comment: I received a LOT of feedback from women regarding this article. At

the risk of generalizing, most women hate it when a man has harsh criticisms of
(single) men and (single) women being nothing more than 'platonic friends'
indefinitely. In many ways, it's as if they take "personal offense" to any criticism of
platonic friendships. Despite the criticisms and harsh disagreements I received, I
stand by everything I said in that article.
4) Many women have a talent for reading a man's mind even before he opens his
mouth

Comment: If there was one article I wrote that just about all of my female readers
hated, criticized, or vehemently disagreed with, it was this one. I received a
number of Facebook messages and e-mail messages after this one was published.
Again, I stand by everything I wrote in that piece, even if I wrote everything in
a satirical tone.

5) Women, sex, and erotic submission: Does "no" always mean "no?" Actually ...
no.

Comment: If I showed you some of the responses I received from women after
writing this article ... you would blush. Enough said. What's interesting is, I
thought women would challenge and criticize this article, but the vast majority of
women said they totally agreed with just about everything I said.

Top 5 articles that have provoked the most feedback from men:

1) How women respond to you often times depends on the "Alpha" vs. "Beta"
dynamics

Comment: I receive messages from male readers to this day about this article. Not
only from men in the US, but from men in a number of other countries. Many men
said they found this article to be enlightening, entertaining, and educational, which
is what I wish for all of my published articles to be.

2) Columnist not too keen on the use of "subcommunication" as a form of

seduction

Comment: Men have typically given me positive feedback on probably 90-95% of

my published articles. This article was one of the less-than-handful that many men
did not like, or did not agree with. The vast majority of men who fancy themselves
as "pick up artists" are all about the concept of "subcommunication" (i.e., showing
a woman that you are interested in her sexually via your facial expressions and
overall body language rather than being verbally blunt and direct about your
sexual desires and interests), so those types hated this article of mine. At
minimum, I believe subcommunication is highly overrated, and at maximum, I
believe it is generally ineffective.

3) To be (a liar), or not to be (a liar) ... that is the question that all men face

Comment: This article is another of the less-than-handful that I published that men
did not like or did not agree with. Many men, quite frankly, believe it is much
easier to seduce a woman into having (casual) sex by lying to them and giving
them the misleading impression that they want a long-term, emotionally profound,
monogamous relationship than to attempt to seduce them by straightforwardly
telling them that all you want is casual sex. They might be right. Playing with
someone's emotions might be "easier," but my strong opinion is that it is simply
wrong and unethical. As one man said, "There should be no 'ethics' involved with
trying to get laid." Yeah, okay. Riiiiiiiiight.

4) What women should men avoid? Very few authors offer advice on this subject

Comment: This article resonated with a LOT of my male readers. They absolutely
loved it. They loved it so much, that many of them suggested that I expand on the
themes and ideas in this article and turn it into a new book. They asked, and they
received: My fourth book, The Possibility of Sex: How Naive and Lustful Men are
Manipulated by Women Regularly, was based totally on this article and one other
previous article. What has been interesting about that book is, no women I know
have offered any 'negative' reviews ... but at the same time, none of them (except
for onefemale friend of mine on Amazon.com) have offered a positive review
either. The women have generally remained silent about the contents of that book.
Hmmm . . .

5) 7 types of ladies' men who have 'game'

Comment: This article received a "mixed" response from men. Many men agreed
with my categorizations of men and their behavior toward women, while an almost
equal number of men disagreed with my various categories. I cannot please
everyone! (nor do I usually try to)

Now, on to the feedback I received regarding the last five (5) articles of mine that
were published. Per usual, I generally only highlight those responses from readers
that fall into one of these three categories:

1. A response that is representative of a strong disagreement to one or more of

the opinions I expressed in a previous article;
2. A response that is representative of a very strong agreement to one or more
of the opinions I expressed in a previous article;
3. A desire for further clarification and understanding to something I
expressed or asserted in a previous article.

[Note: Also per usual, all first names have been changed for the sake of
anonymity, and many questions and/or comments may have been edited,
condensed or paraphrased to some degree in order to either save space or correct
spelling and grammatical errors]

Email feedback in response to my article, "What the Petraeus Affair says about
the sexual behavior of both men and women"
From Katrina D.:

"I came across one of your articles while searching for another article on Google.
The problem I have with your most recent article is that it sounds like you tend to
assume that women 'choose' to associate their emotions with sex. If indeed that is
your assumption, it is a very wrong one. Personally, I cannot have sex with a man
without allowing my emotions to get involved. I believe that is how all women are
wired. When you allow a man to ENTER your body, you are being extremely
vulnerable to him. How can that not create some degree of emotional attachment?
The extramarital affair that happened with the former CIA Director (David
Petraeus) was unfortunate, but the reality is, his mistress (Paula Broadwell)
probably would have never agreed to have sex with him unless she had an
emotional attachment to him. My opinion!!"

Alan's response: Katrina, you say yourself, "I cannot have sex with a man
without allowing my emotions to get involved." The key word is "allowing." No
one forces women to become emotionally attached to each and every man that she
has sex with.

You need to read this article I wrote in December 2011 entitled, "Do women have
to be 'in love' in order to experience great sex?" Again, I believe that the vast
majority of women choose to onlyhave sex with men who they have some type of
emotional attachment to. I do not feel that it is in a woman's "DNA" to fall in love
with every man they have sex with. If that were truly the case, as I say in that
previous article, there would be no such thing as street prostitutes, professional
Call Girls, or high-priced, upscale Erotic Escorts.

Very few if any men I know treat sex like an "emotional bonding event." I
mentioned in a previous article that for men, sex is primarily for relieving stress,
conquering boredom, and/or satiating our ego. I know for me, giving a woman a
key to my apartment, house, dormitory room, or car is more representative of me
"emotionally bonding" with her than me simply exchanging orgasms with her.

Email feedback in response to my article, "Suzy Favor Hamilton's 'double life' is

typical of a sexually duplicitous woman"

From Treychelle W.:

"Alan, since you seem to like people to 'keep it real,' I am going to give it to you
straight. All women have two sides to their sexuality. All women. Any woman who
says she doesn't is lying. Men and women are not that different Alan. I think you
know this. Just like you guys have some women you want to date and settle down
with, and other women you just want to screw (i.e., have casual sex with), we are
the same way. There are some men I meet that I look at as husband material, other
men I just want to screw, and other men that I just want to be (platonic) friends
with. The difference is, women are criticized by society if we come out (publicly)
and admit that. That is why we are 'duplicitous' as you refer to it as. Sometimes we
just want some d**k! :)"

Alan's response: Well Treychelle, the first thing I am going to do is give your e-
mail address to Katrina above, so you can explain to her what you conveyed to me.
As you correctly surmised, you are not sharing anything with me that I do not
already know. Many of my close female friends, former girlfriends, former casual
sex lovers, and other female acquaintances have admitted to me over the years
what you said in your feedback message.

I do not know if I agree with your assertion that "all women" are like how you
described, but I definitely agree that a good number of single heterosexual women
fall into the category you described. I talk about this in my book, Oooooh . . . Say
it Again: Mastering the Fine Art of Verbal Seduction and Aural Sex.

Email feedback in response to my article, "If you treat all women as if they are
'special' to you, then none of them are"

From Kathleen R.:

"A girlfriend of mine shared your article with me, and I found it amusing and
irritating at the same time. I feel that marriages and relationships are way too
complex to have you reduce the importance of them to simply 'talking and fu**ing.'
I wanted much more from my ex-husband than good conversation and good sex. I
want more than that from any man I am romantically involved with. I am similar to
the woman you criticized from your relationship chat event. Even when I indulge in
acts of 'casual sex,' I do not want to be treated like a whore or a prostitute. I want
to be treated like a woman with a full range of emotions who has a high degree of
respect for herself. The only opinion of yours I agreed with was when you said
most men do not favor platonic friendships with women. That is so true, and in the
long run, that is their loss. You are quite an interesting opinion writer Mr. Currie.
I will keep my eye out for future articles from you."

Alan's response: I will start off by saying thank you to your girlfriend for sharing
my article with you, and I thank you for expressing a desire to continue to read
articles full of my very strong opinions and very valid (or sometimes, invalid)
assertions related to male-female interactions, dating and relationships, love and
sex, and attraction and seduction. Quick note: I received moreFacebook "likes" on
this article in the first 24 hours after it was published than any other article that I've
had published on The Examiner.com

I stand by what I said in the article. I did not say that the ONLY two important
components of a relationship are talking and exchanging orgasms, but I will say
that I think those are the two most important components.
Let's be real: Would you remain in a long-term monogamous relationship or
marriage with a man who you do not enjoy having regular conversations with? If
so, why? Would you remain in a long-term monogamous relationship or marriage
with a man who you do not enjoy having sex with regularly? If your answer is
'yes,' I want you to please explain why.

Now I am not naive about some of the more shallow and superficial women of the
world. There are many women who marry men because of their degree of career
success, financial success, and/or social status, and with those types, they could
give a hoot about good conversation or good sex. Are you one of these women
Kathleen? I talk about these types of women in Part Two of my latest book, The
Possibility of Sex. Please write me and tell me. I am very curious to hear from you
(again).

Email feedback in response to my article, "Columnist feels that many women

use the term 'creepy' excessively and invalidly"

From Darnell M.:

"Alan, I am so glad you wrote this article! I hate when women call men 'creepy'
simply because men express an interest in having sex with a woman in a bold and
direct manner, like your book Mode One encourages. Also, the whole older man-
younger woman scenario you spoke of. There is nothing creepy about Brent
Musberger gushing over Miss Alabama's looks!! I would think he was weird or
creepy if he DIDN'T acknowledge her beauty. Explain to me why women are so
goofy and weird about anything sexual!! LOL"

Alan's response: I would not necessarily call women "weird" or "goofy" (although
some women can surely be both), but I would say it is more related to this previous
article I wrote ("The social programming of women often leaves many men feeling
confused and frustrated") and also what I discussed in Part One of my book, Say it
Again.

I would place most of the blame on women's family members (i.e., mother, father,
older brother, etc.). The reality is this: You ask one-hundred fathers are they cool
with their daughters engaging in frequent episodes of short-term non-monogamous
sex, and I guarantee you that 95-99% of them will say, "I am not down with that."

Just like I would argue that no man or woman is born a racist ... racism is
something that is taught to men and women while they are young, usually by one
or more of their parents ... same with negative attitudes toward sex. Of the women
I have dated or interacted with personally who had 'negative' and/or 'prudish'
attitudes toward sex, significantly over half of them said most of their attitudes
came from an older family member. Usually their father or step-father, and in
many cases their mother, older brother, aunt, uncle, or grandparent.
As men, we are different. My late mother never told me "don't engage in casual
sex." She just encouraged me to be "smart" and "safe" (i.e., wear condoms). I bet
money though that if my parents had a daughter, there would have been a clear
double standard in our house regarding casual sex and premarital sex. I know that
for sure. That is how most members of my parents' generation were.

Email feedback in response to my article, "Ten of the most highly invalid beliefs
(a.k.a. myths) related to attraction and dating"

From Marilyn B.:

"Mr. Currie!! How dare you describe many great TRUTHS as 'myths!' I disagreed
with no less than half of the ten 'myths' you listed. I think because you are a man
with very liberal tendencies, your opinions are very skewed to say the least. Of the
Top 3 you listed for men, I disagreed with all three! Of the Top 3 you listed for
women, I disagreed with #1 and #3 (and I only partially agreed with myth #2). Of
the Top 4 you listed for both genders, I disagreed with #3 and #4. I only date men
who come across to me as a 'gentlemen with class.' I don't date broke, unemployed
losers who talk about sex 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. I have always been
labeled a 'good girl' by men, and I never have made the first move with a man.
Finally, most women I know have no desire to date a man who is an egotistical
'control freak' with no proclivities toward compromising. I have never had sex with
any of my male 'friends,' and never will. Your article represents the main reason
why I am in my mid-thirties and still not married! I will not settle for low quality
men!! Shame on you Mr. Currie!"

Alan's response: So wait a minute. You say that you are in your "mid-thirties."
Let's say, you are thirty-five years of age. So ... you are saying that from the time
you turned 18 until now, you have not met one man who had a good job, exhibited
behavior that was 'classy' and 'gentlemanlike,' and did not talk about sex all day
and all night? All of these "good male friends" you have, and not one of them was
worthy of dating?

To borrow Darnell's words above, that sounds sort of "goofy" and "weird" to me. If
you were married, or involved in a long-term relationship, and you offered those
same criticisms, I might say, "Hmmm ... she might have a point or two." But the
fact that you essentially admitted that you are still single and unmarried lets me
know that your criteria for a romantic companion are probably so nitpicky,
unrealistic, and persnickety that you will more-than-likely continue to have a hard
time identifying a "good man."

Even current President Barack Obama took out First Lady Michelle Obama on a
first date in a car with a hole in the floor. I guess in your eyes, he would have been
a "loser" with big ears!!
The nerve of some women.

Happy Valentine's Day folks.

25 Great Movies that will
help you examine the
various phases of becoming
a man
I love good movies and high quality independent films.

The main reason why I moved to Los Angeles in late May of 1994 was because at
the time, I wanted to become a high-ranking, powerful feature-film development
executive. I had an internship in Beverly Hills at New Line Cinema film production
and distribution company that exposed me to various facets of the feature-film
industry.

I read dozens of spec scripts as part of my internship (a 'spec script' is a screenplay

written by an up-and-coming or unknown screenwriter who is attempting to sell his
work and/or get his work "optioned"; For example, if Paramount Pictures offers me a
$50,000 / $300,000 option, that basically means that they will pay me $50,000
upfront just for the opportunity to have the exclusive rights to read my script for
three-to-six months ... and then, if they choose to "green light" the script and have it
made into a feature-film, then I would receive an additional $250,000 in
compensation. If they pass on the script, I get to keep the $50,000 and try to sell it to
another movie studio or production company).

My taste in movies is very eclectic. I love all genres of film: dramas, comedies,
horror, suspense thrillers, biographical tales and period pieces, and action movies.
For the purposes of this article, I want to offer my suggestions for films that best ask
(and hopefully answer) one or more of these questions:

"How do I handle being a father for the first time?"

"How do I determine who is really my friend versus someone who just wants to take
advantage of me?"

"How do I handle the process of getting older and experiencing declining health and
energy?"

"How do I get away from a lifestyle of poverty and violence and attempt to improve
my life?"

"How close is my bond with my closest male friends? Would I sacrifice my life in
order to save theirs?"
"Will some of the best memories I cherish for the rest of my life be the times I spent
on a 'road trip' with my closest male friends?"

"Do I need someone to light a fire under my butt to help me get out of a 'rut' and do
what I need to do to improve my career and my finances?"

"Have I taken time out of my life to be a 'big brother' or 'mentor' to someone younger
than me who needs good advice and wisdom?"

"If my best male friend does not care for my new girlfriend, should I dump her to
remain friends with him? Or should I sacrifice my friendship with him in order to
maintain my romantic relationship with my new girlfriend?"

"If I see that hundreds or thousands of people are at risk of being harmed, should I
put my own life at risk in order to provide them with safety?"

"Which is more important: My career success and financial security? Or my sense of

moral character, honesty, and integrity?"

"How do I reveal to my closest male friends that I feel depressed and lonely after
breaking up with my last long-term girlfriend? How do I ask for tips on how to
approach new women, initiate a conversation with them, and ask for their phone
number?"

"How do I learn to stand up for myself against other guys who are trying to 'bully'
me?"

"What is the key to achieving my most desired goals and objectives in life? Just how
hard must I work in order to achieve them?"

"Is it better to be non-confrontation with others and do whatever the status quo is
doing? Or should I be bold enough to blaze my own trail in this life, and exhibit
behavior that goes against the grain of conventional wisdom?"

"How would I go about teaching my son how to develop confidence and backbone in
order to be a man? What if I was put in a situation where I had to show my older
brother or even my father how to be more of a man?"

"Am I a man who has truly lived up to my potential? Or am I a man who has a
profound 'fear of success' that has prevented me from using my gifts, skills, and
talents to the highest degree?"

"Am I a man who looks for the 'easy way' to do things? Am I afraid of complex
challenges that may prevent me from achieving my desired goals and objectives?
Am I afraid of failure?"

"How do I learn to avoid conflict and violence when even the police are not
committed to protecting the members of the community?"
"What do I need to do to attract my first girlfriend ever? Or at minimum, get laid for
the first time ever?"

"How do I go about getting a new job when I am broke and unemployed, even
though I have a child to raise and attend to as a single father?"

"If I was convicted for a crime that I did commit, how would I suppress my anger and
bitterness and eventually adjust to life in prison?"

"How do I find the strength to go on in life after I have seen my parents get murdered
in cold blood? How do I fight violent criminals without resorting to gun violence
myself?"

"How do I overcome my fears, doubts, insecurities, and cowardice to become a real

man or else risk being killed by a stranger?"

"If someone from another neighborhood, city, region, or country came into my
community threatening to enslave my male friends and I, and even worse, rape and
sexually take advantage of our women, would I stand up for myself if it meant
possibly being killed or imprisoned by these men? Or would I just give in to their
demands in order to avoid being killed or put in a prison cell?"

As the #1 male Dating & Relationships columnist on The Examiner.com, I am

going to share with you my choices for the films that best address these questions
and themes.

#25 - Knocked Up (2007)Google Images

#25 - Knocked Up (2007)
General Premise: A young guy (Seth Rogen) who just loves partying with his buddies and
hitting on women ends up having a one-night stand with a slightly inebriated beautiful
woman (Katherine Heigl) who he and his close friends consider to be "out of his league,"
and to his surprise, he finds out later that he got the woman pregnant

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link
Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: Many young guys who have read one or more
of my books tend ask me, "Alan ... how can I build up enough confidence to approach women
who are 'out of my league'?" Personally, I do not believe in the notion of a woman being "out
of a guy's league." I see women as either being interested in you romantically or sexually ...
or not interested in having sex with you and dating you.

Most men dread thinking about the idea of getting a woman pregnant after a one-night stand
or weekend fling. Over half of the reason is because usually, you tend to have a one-night
stand or weekend fling with women who you do not look at as "wife" material or "long-term
girlfriend" material. In those situations where our primary objective is short-term non-
monogamous sex, we as men really just want enjoyable sex and satisfying orgasms.

What if the tables were turned? What if you had sex with a woman who you did look at as
potential "girlfriend" material, but it was the woman who looked at you as just a casual roll-
in-the-hay? This was the situation that Rogen's character of "Ben Stone" found himself in.

Even though this is primarily a comedy, the film had some dramatic moments that were very
touching. If a man is about to become a father for the first time ... he has absolutely no idea
what to expect. Even the First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama said that when she
was pregnant with President Obama's oldest daughter Malia, he once took a walk around the
block numerous times because he was sort of "stressing out" about his impending foray into
fatherhood.

The greatest responsibility any man will ever have in life is being responsible for providing
food and security to children who depend on them. Many men run away from this
responsibility.

#24 - Bad Influence (1990)Google Images

#24 - Bad Influence (1990)
General Premise: A young urban professional a.k.a. "yuppie" (James Spader) who is
intelligent and ambitious, but lacks courage and backbone, befriends a mysterious stranger
(Rob Lowe) who offers him advice on how to climb the ladder to career success and personal
happiness

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link
Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: Surely if you are 21 years of age or older, you
have met a guy who initially seemed very cool, down-to-earth, helpful, and enjoyable to be
around. Then a few days, weeks, or months later, you realize your new friend has some
quirks and behavioral habits that just do not mesh right with you and your personality.

Many men and women who swear by the Christian Bible say that Lucifer (otherwise known
as "The Devil" or "Satan") never 'forces' human beings to do anything that they really do not
want to do. The Devil simply monitors your more selfish, immoral, and unethical desires, and
whispers in your ear and mind, "Go ahead ... do it. You know you want to."

This is never clearly said in the film, but my best speculation is that Lowe's character
represents Satan, similar to Al Pacino's character in The Devil's Advocate. If he is not
Lucifer himself, he is definitely an agent of or fan of the Fallen Angel.

Choosing quality friends is not a challenge unique to men ... because many women face this
challenge as well. Men though love bonding with other men, and enjoying the camaraderie of
new male acquaintances. You have to watch yourself. Some new male friends may prove to
be a "bad influence" in your life, and the next thing you know, your life is spiraling out of
control.

#23 - In the Line of Fire (1993)Google Images

#23 - In the Line of Fire (1993)
General Premise: An aging Secret Service agent (Clint Eastwood) who is fairly close to
retirement crosses paths with a former CIA agent who now has the ambition of murdering the
President of the United States

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: Even though I have yet to reach the age of a
"senior citizen," I have been around enough of my older relatives, and particularly my older
male relatives, enough to know that many of them have a hard time accepting that their
youthful and energetic days have passed.

Secret Service Agent Frank Horrigan (Eastwood) has a hard time accepting the fact that he is
at an age where he needs to retire. The fact is, he has lost a step. Or two. Or three. On top of
that, he is still haunted by the fact that he failed to prevent the assassination death of former
President John F. Kennedy (at least within the world of this fictional story).

If you are a young or middle aged man, will you be ready to embrace your years of 65 and
older? Or will you slowly transition into your own delusional fantasy world, and lead your
mind to believe that you are still in your twenties, thirties, forties, or fifties?

Only time will tell. Remember: You are never too old to be someone's hero.

#22 - Sin Nombre [foreign] (2009) Google Images

#22 - Sin Nombre [foreign] (2009)
General Premise: A teenage boy and member of a notorious gang (Edgar Flores) growing
up in Central America reaches out to help a teenage girl (Paulina Gaitan) and her family
remain safe as they attempt to move from The Republic of Honduras to Mexico, and
eventually the United States

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: I love foreign films. Many of my friends hate
subtitles, but if a movie is good ... it is good. I don't care what language it is filmed in. Over
the last 10-15 years, I have watched an average of five-to-ten foreign films per year.

Sin Nombre is hands down one of the best foreign films I have ever seen. The writing, acting,
and directing in this film is exceptional.

Some young men cannot relate to gang life, because they were fortunate enough to be born
and raised in a neighborhood that was far removed from socio-economic factors that breed
gang banger lifestyles.

For many guys in different cities in the US and internationally, the only way you can prevent
yourself from being bullied and harmed is to become initiated into a gang.

The lead character in this film, Casper, does not want remain in a gang. He wants more for
his life. Also, he has fallen in love with his girlfriend. After the head gang member rapes and
kills his girlfriend, Casper is ready to take off from his world of drama, violence, and murder
and move on.

Casper tries to persuade his young protg named "Smiley" (Kristyan Ferrer, who was a
terrific child actor in the film) to leave the gang too, but Smiley wants to prove to the gang
that he is "not a punk."

How many young guys grow up with that being their #1 mission in life? "Hey ... I ain't no
punk. I ain't no wimp. I'm as tough as anyone!!" Many of the pre-teens and teenagers looking
to prove they are not a "punk" end up dead soon after joining a street gang.

You do not need to murder people, harm people, or bully people to prove that you are "not a
punk." Simply do not allow others who are "bad influences" to sway you away from your
beliefs, convictions, principles and beliefs.

#21 - End of Watch (2012)Google Images

#21 - End of Watch (2012)
General Premise: Two men (Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Pea), who have developed a
close friendship while working together as police officers in one of the toughest
neighborhoods of South Central Los Angeles, find themselves targeted to be killed by
members of a South American drug cartel

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: Some moviegoers probably looked at this film
as a movie simply about "good guys vs. bad guys," but this film is a really a story about male
bonding and a strong, brotherly like friendship between two police officers who are partners.

Mike (Pea) is more of a loyal family man who is deeply in love with his wife, who was his
high school sweetheart. Brian (Gyllenhaal) is more of a womanizing, fun-loving free-spirit
who is not afraid to smart-mouth anyone, including his boss.

I cannot talk about this film without giving too much away, but I will simply ask you: How
many close male friends would you take a bullet for? I mean, literally. How many of your
close male friends would you sacrifice your life in order to protect and save theirs?
Marinate on that question for a few days, weeks, and months. "Friendship" should never be
used loosely.

#20 - The Hangover (2009)Google Images

#20 - The Hangover (2009)
General Premise: Two close male friends (Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms) travel to Las
Vegas to celebrate the upcoming wedding of their buddy (Justin Bartha); The soon-to-be-
bride's brother (Zach Galifianakis) also comes along with the three to Vegas, but after a wild
night of partying and drinking, the fellas find themselves not able to remember what
happened the night before, and unable to find their buddy who is the upcoming groom.

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: I know most men enjoy spending quality time
with their girlfriends or wives, but I would argue that some of your best memories as a man
come from just hangin' out with your closest male buddies. Especially if you all are hangin'
out with one another while out-of-town somewhere.

Hopefully, when you are somewhere between 18 years of age and 35 years of age, you have
had the opportunity to take at least one "road trip" with two or more of your closest male
friends.

One of my most memorable times like this began on a Friday night in March 1995, when me,
my older brother, and three other close friends made a very 'spontaneous' decision to travel
from Los Angeles to Las Vegas at about 1:00 AM PST. This was my first time ever in Vegas,
and I had a blast. We still talk about what happened that weekend to this day.

My real life adventure in Vegas would not hold a candle to what happened to the fictional
characters in the movie The Hangover, but that movie simply makes me think of all of the
good times I have ever had in Las Vegas, and all of the good times I have ever had hangin'
out with my closest male friends.
#19 - Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) Google Images
#19 - Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
General Premise: A group of real estate salesmen (Alan Arkin, Ed Harris, and Jack
Lemmon) spend a lot of time whining and complaining about how much they hate their jobs,
but then a top company salesman by the name of "Blake" (Alec Baldwin) informs them that
there are new sales leads available to them known as the "Glengarry leads."

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: At one point in my twenties, I was pursuing an
acting career. I remember I was once in a stage play, but I failed to win the audition for the
lead male character. My director said, "There are no 'small parts' in this play. Every part is
significant."

At the time, I was like "He is just saying that to make me feel better." After viewing
the David Mamet's film Glengarry Glen Ross, I realized I had to agree with my former stage
play director. Alec Baldwin is only in this film for maybe fifteen or twenty minutes, but he
damn near steals the movie.

The speech by Baldwin's character of "Blake" to the disgruntled salesmen of a Chicago real
estate office is priceless.

Have you ever been an employee who was constantly complaining about your boss, your co-
workers, or the responsibilities of your job? If you have not been this person, have you
worked with others who were like this?

My attitude is, if you don't like what you are doing ... quit. Find another job that you actually
do like. But do not sit around whining and complaining everyday and every week.

You know what it takes to sell real estate? Brass balls.

If you have not yet seen this film, you will enjoy it thoroughly.
#18 - Finding Forrester (2000)Google Images
#18 - Finding Forrester (2000)
General Premise: A young African-American high school student (Rob Brown) with a
talent for basketball and an even greater talent for writing and English crosses path with a
well-known, well-respected book author (Sean Connery) who has become a low-key recluse
in his old age

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: When I was the Program Coordinator for a
nationwide mentoring program at Indiana University Northwest in Gary, Indiana, I
would show this movie each and every year to the incoming freshmen as part of the
program's "Summer Bridge Academy" which was held in July every year.

I will confess ... I am somewhat partial to films where the lead character and male protagonist
is a writer, author, screenwriter, playwright, editor, blogger, etc. Many times, when you are a
young black male with some degree of writing talent, you are tempted to hide it for fear of
having some of your peers label you a "nerd" or "bookworm."

This was, to a degree, the case with the character of Jamal Brown. He had a gift for writing,
but he never liked emphasizing it or talking about it because basketball was where he earned
most of his respect from his male peers. Many men, and particularly Black men, have written
lyrics for songs, musicals, and stage plays. Many rappers are even underrated as writers and
lyricists.

To take it a step further, what if you were a high school student who had an English teacher
who did not feel like you deserved to attend his prestigious prep school, and accused you of
plagiary when you hand in your essay paper?

I do not want to give away too many plot points for those who have not seen this film, but
this movie left an indelible impression on me for sure.
#17 - Chasing Amy (1997)Google Images
#17 - Chasing Amy (1997)
General Premise: An aspiring comic book writer (Ben Affleck) meets a woman (Joey
Lauren Adams) who initially claims to be a lesbian, but soon the two fall hard for each other
and become 'boyfriend' and 'girlfriend.' The man's close friend and fellow comic book writer
(Jason Lee) has major concerns about his buddy's new girlfriend as the woman threatens to
come between their friendship

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: Have you and a close male friend of yours ever
fell out with one another over your choice of a girlfriend or his choice of a girlfriend?

Secondly, how would you react if you found out weeks after you started dating your
girlfriend that she had a reputation for being highly promiscuous while she was in high
school and/or college?

These questions, and the answers to them, provide the basis for this very memorable film
written and directed by Kevin Smith entitled, Chasing Amy. To this day, I always rank this
movie in my Top 5 best dating and relationships movies for men. Affleck was a relatively
unknown actor at the time this film was made, but his performance was very, very good.
Very realistic storylines.

#16 - Hotel Rwanda (2004)Google Images

#16 - Hotel Rwanda (2004)
General Premise: In the early-to-mid 1990s, a civil war between the Tutsi ethnic group and
the Hutu ethnic group broke out in the African country of Rwanda that resulted in a
"Rwandan Genocide." Close to one million Rwandans were left dead by the time the war
finally ended. Real life hero and humanitarian Paul Rusesabagina (portrayed in the film by
actorDon Cheadle) was responsible for saving the lives of over 1,000+ Rwandan refugees.

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: I love movies about real-life heros. I mean,
some fictional heroes are cool too (such as Bruce Wayne / Batman), but movies that are
based on ordinary men risking their lives to unintentionally become a hero really resonates
with me.

I think the moment you move from being a "good" person to an "evil" person (or if not 'evil,'
at minimum, "selfish") happens when you lose your sense of compassion and empathy for the
challenges and unexpected episodes of adversity of your fellow human beings.

The Rwandan Genocide was an atrocity that should have never taken place. Think about
how many men and women have either been murdered and/or enslaved because of their racial
differences from those in power, their ethnic differences from those in power, and general
physical appearance and general background differences from those who had money,
weapons, or both.

Hotel Rwanda is a powerful film that demonstrates the old adage, "one man CAN make a
difference in the lives of others." Thousands of others.

#15 - The Insider (1999) Google Images

#15 - The Insider (1999)
General Premise: This film tells the true story of former tobacco industry executive Jeffrey
Wigand (portrayed in the film by actor Russell Crowe), who reluctantly decides to act as a
"whistleblower" on the activities of the tobacco industry and appear on the CBS-TV News
show "60 Minutes" after being persuaded by the very truth-oriented and detail-oriented show
producer Lowell Bergman (portrayed by actor Al Pacino). Wigand ultimately reveals that
the tobacco industry was not only aware that cigarettes were highly addictive & harmful to
people's health, but that the scientists in the industry were directed to deliberately increasing
the level of addictive agents in cigarettes.

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: If you worked for a corporation and you were
earning a nice six-figure salary, would you risk your sense of financial security because of
your desire to be honest and maintain your sense of moral character and integrity? I mean,
seriously ... would you?

For many men, wealth. career success, and financial security is EVERYTHING. Literally. I
know many men that even if they found out that the company they worked for was into
"shady practices," they would simply turn their head the other way and keep earning their
paycheck. I mean, who wants to be broke and unemployed? Especially when you have a
family to feed and support?

It takes a man of high integrity ... a real man ... to stand up for his beliefs and convictions,
and publicly admit that something is not right about a company and an entire industry that is
essentially making millions and billions of dollars ruining people's health and ultimately
killing them.

At least once per year, you should examine yourself thoroughly and ask yourself, "What
principles do I stand for? What about my life is MORE important than money, fame, social
status, partying and power?" When you answer those questions honestly, you will identify
your true self.

#14 - Swingers (1996) Google Images

#14 - Swingers (1996)
General Premise: A group of male friends who have decided to move to Los Angeles in
hopes of having a successful career in the Entertainment Industry rally around one of their
buddies (Jon Favreau) who has just broken up with his long-time girlfriend, and they
encourage him to socialize more and meet new women to take his mind off of his ex-
girlfriend.
IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: This movie is arguably my favorite "romantic
comedy strictly for men" ever made.

The interesting thing is, when I first saw this movie, I was very ticked off. Why? Because a
few months earlier, I had provided my older brother with a 25-30 page pamphlet entitled,
"The Mode One Principles" (which was the precursor to my first book, Mode One: Let the
Women Know What You're REALLY Thinking) to share with some of his male co-workers
and subordinates. I felt like the film Swingers had a lot of "Mode One themed undertones"
that could have possibly been "stolen" from my pamphlet.

I could relate to both of the lead characters in this film. At times in my life as a young adult
male, I found myself exhibiting behavior eerily similar to that of the "Mikey" character
(Favreau). The character of Mikey is loosely similar to Bradley Cooper's character of "Pat"
from the 2012 film Silver Linings Playbook in the sense that both men have a hard time
getting over the fact that their previous relationships have ended. Mikey is constantly looking
at photographs of he and his ex-girlfriend.

On the flip side, I could totally relate to the smooth, charming, ultra-confident personality of
the witty womanizer named Trent (actor Vince Vaughn). I have been the guy who was
known for giving advice to male friends on how they could improve their chances of
attracting and seducing a woman of interest.

Basically, whenever I was involved in a relationship, or shortly after a break up, I was
"Mikey." When I was totally single and unattached, and just looking to get laid regularly, I
was "Trent." This movie also resonated with me because I had only been living in Los
Angeles for about two years when this movie came out, and I was a struggling, "wannabe"
screenwriter and filmmaker trying to make ends meet.

Similar to my #20 choice, The Hangover, this film will make you reminisce on all of the
good times you've had hanging out with your closest male friends.

#13 - The Karate Kid (1984)Google Images

#13 - The Karate Kid (1984)
General Premise: A teenager and high school student (Ralph Macchio) moves with his
single mom to Southern California, and very soon, begins to get picked on and bullied by a
group of teenage boys who are studying a form of the martial arts known as karate. One
night, after being chased by the bullies, the high school student befriends an older Asian man
(Pat Morita) who teaches him how to stand up for himself and fight back against the bullies.

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: I think every boy between the ages of 6 or 7
years of age up until their late teens or even early twenties can relate to the idea of having to
deal with one or more neighborhood bullies and/or classroom bullies.

Bullying has been around for centuries, and from the news stories I read, it does not seem like
it will ever go away. One of the reasons among others why many men and women send their
sons and daughters to private schools instead of public schools is so that they won't have to
deal with other kids picking on them on weekly or monthly basis.

It seems that the number one time a young boy is usually tested is when he first enrolls in a
new school, and similarly, first makes his presence established in a new neighborhood.

Sometimes you might have parents who are able to protect you, older siblings or cousins who
are able to protect you, or close friends who will able to protect you, or at least assist you
during a fight. Other times, you just have to learn to stand up for yourself and fight your own
fights. Most bullies really do not want to fight. They just want to instill fear in you so that
they can "punk" you and get you to behave in the manner that they want you to.

Once you show a bully that you are not willing to be his personal "punk," most of them will
eventually leave you alone. This is the beginning of when a boy starts to develop his
backbone.

#12 - Rudy (1993) Google Images

#12 - Rudy (1993)
General Premise: A high school football player (Sean Astin) who does not really have the
physical prowess or academic credentials to warrant the attention of the prestigious Notre
Dame University focuses on his ambitions, works hard, and finally gains admittance into
Notre Dame as a student, and earns a place on the practice team as a walk-on of the
University's football squad.

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: If you want to achieve anything in life that is
truly worthwhile, you have to work your butt off. Along the way to you pursuing your goals,
there are going to be challenges, setbacks, naysayers, haters, doubts and insecurities in your
own mind ... all of that.

The question is, how bad do you REALLY want to achieve that goal? What are you willing
to sacrifice? How hard are you really willing to work?

That is the essence of this film in a nutshell. By the end, you will be chanting "Rudy! Rudy!!
Rudy!!!" Every young man with ambitions of improving himself should see this film.

#11 - Dead Poets Society (1989)Google Images

#11 - Dead Poets Society (1989)
General Premise: A fairly new teacher (Robin Williams) becomes the center of controversy
when it is learned that he exhibits some very "unconventional" methods of teaching his male
students English, grammar, and poetry at a private boarding school for boys.

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link
Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: Do you think for yourself? Or do you just sort
of "follow the crowd" and adhere to the beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral norms that the
"majority" of people in society have?

Many times, it is a challenging endeavor to "go against the grain." Just about every book I
have written has messages in it and teachings in it that "go against the grain" of conventional,
popular wisdom, particularly as it relates to interpersonal communication skills between men
and women, and the subject of attraction, seduction, love, sex, and dating in general.

At some point, you have to ask yourself, "Am I the person who I really, truly want to be? Or
am I the person that everyone else around me (friends, family, neighbors, etc.) wants me to be
and expects me to be?"

This film examines that question, and the end result is one of the best films you will ever see
in your life. My current screensaver on my computer says, "Seize the Day," and I first
became familiar with that concept from watching this film.

#10 - Back to the Future (1984)Google Images

#10 - Back to the Future (1984)
General Premise: A high school student (Michael J. Fox) with a love for comic books and
science fiction movies develops a close friendship with an eccentric wannabe inventor
(Christopher Lloyd), and through a twist of unexpected circumstances, he is accidentally
sent back thirty years in time only to find himself in a position where he must play the role of
"matchmaker" for his mother and father to ensure his existence

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: Have you ever as a young boy told one of your
buddies, "My Dad can beat up your Dad!" In most scenarios between fathers and sons, it is
usually the father who is teaching the son "how to be a man."

What if you went back in time via an unorthodox "time machine" only to be shocked and
disappointed to find out that your father was somewhat of a "wimp" and introvert who was
practically afraid of his own shadow? What would you do?
Let's take it a step further. What if during your visit "back in time" you saw that your mother
and father were not on the path to connect romantically (in part, because of your presence)?
In other words, if you do not make sure your mother and father connect romantically and
sexually, you will no longer exist in the universe?

In this delightful comedy, it is the son who teaches the father about what it means and what it
takes to be a real man with backbone. The scene where the cowardly father finally stands up
for himself actually got me choked up the first one or two times I saw this film.

I will repeat this theme and message ad nauseum: In every man's life, there is going to come a
time when you will be challenged to stand up for yourself and demonstrate your backbone.
Either physically, psychologically, spiritually and/or morally, or all of the above. It might be
when you are as young as 5 or 6 years of age, or as old as 30 or 40 years of age. That moment
always comes. It is inevitable.

#9 - Good Will Hunting (1997)Google Images

#9 - Good Will Hunting (1997)
General Premise: A young man (Matt Damon) who has been a foster child for most of his
life, and works as a janitor at a prestigious university, reveals that he has the intellectual
acumen to figure out extremely complex mathematical formulas, but he seems to be content
just hanging with his childhood friends rather then taking the steps to genuinely improve his
life.

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: Have you ever been accused of "under-
utilizing" your potential? Maybe you have the talent to be an athlete, but you are lazy. Maybe
you have the talent to be an actor, screenwriter, singer, or musician, but you have a lack of
self-confidence that is holding you back. Maybe you have what it takes to become the owner
and CEO of your own company, but your "fear of failure" (or "fear of success") is preventing
you from making any bold moves.
Whenever my older brother and I have lived far apart from one another, there will be times
when he will call me and say, "Go see XYZ movie. NOW." I know what that usually means.
That movie has a some sort of character, storyline, or message that I need to see and hear.

Good Will Hunting was one of those movies. My brother identified my potential to be an
author way before I did. He was urging me to become an author as far back as the late 1980s,
early 1990s, but I did not officially become an author of a paperback until late February of
2006.

Most people tend to believe that it is the "fear of failure" that prevents people from achieving
all that they are capable of achieving. My late father Clarence, along with movie
mogul Sherry Lansing, had a different take on what prevents men and women from rising to
the heights of their full potential.

They both said that it was more so the "fear of success" that held people back rather than the
fear of failure. When you "fear" something, you generally try to avoid it as much as possible.
So that stands to reason that if you truly "feared" failure, you would do everything possible to
avoid it.

My father believed that many guys (and women too) were "afraid" of success primarily for
two reasons: 1) He believed that most people are afraid of provoking feelings of jealousy and
envy in others (in other words, they do not want to have to deal with critics, doubters, and
'haters'); 2) He believed that most people did not want to see their relationships with close
friends and family members "change" drastically due to a significant improvement in their
level of career success. wealth, fame, or authority and power.

A few years after my father dropped those words of wisdom on me, Ms. Lansing essentially
said the same thing when she offered some comments during an interview.

This is the main theme of Good Will Hunting. Will (Damon) is a guy with a boat load of
"potential," but he is scared to put that potential to use because he is afraid that his
friendships with his buddies will no longer be the same.

Are you "afraid of success?" Be honest.

#8 - A Few Good Men (1992)Google Images

#8 - A Few Good Men (1992)
General Premise: A young Armed Services lawyer (Tom Cruise) who has a reputation for
being a master at avoiding actual litigation and trials because of a talent for negotiating plea
deals is finally forced to experience an actual trial as he attempts to prevent two marines
accused of murder from spending the rest of their lives in prison.

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: If there is one actor that has been a star or co-
star in some of my all-time favorite movies, it is Tom Cruise (with Eddie
Murphy and Denzel Washington right behind him). This is just the first of three films
included in my "Top 25 Movies That Will Make You Examine Your Manhood" that will
feature the talented Mr. Cruise.

A lot of us in life want to take the "easy route" to achieving our goals and objectives. Either
in our careers, or in our personal lives, there are some of us who really do not want to be
challenged, or really do not want to go "the extra mile" that may be necessary to accomplish a
given task.

Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee (Cruise) is one of those people. Kaffee has no desire to actually try
a criminal case. His first option - always - is to go for the plea deal. Kaffee is the unoffical
"King of Plea Deals" in the ranks of the Armed Services.

When two marines are accused of murdering their fellow soldier, Kaffee is chosen to
represent them. Initially ... as expected ... he just simply wants a plea deal for both marines.
One of the marines challenges Kaffee's manhood though. This marine does not want to accept
a plea deal because in his heart, he does not feel like he did anything that was wrong or
against the law. All he did was follow orders, and in the Marines, it is your obligation to
always follow the orders that are given to you.

The last 20-30 minutes of this film consistently gives me goose bumps. Hands down, one of
the best courtroom thrillers in the history of movies. "I want the truth!!" "You can't handle the
truth!!!" Classic.

#7 - City of God [foreign] (2002)Google Images

#7 - City of God [foreign] (2002)
General Premise: Based on a true story, a young boy (actor Alexandre Rodrigues) grows
up in the slums in the city of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil with the aspiration of becoming a top
photographic journalist; While chasing his ambitions, he begins to chronicle the lives and
activities of local gang members who desire to own and control the city.

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: With all due respect to talented
filmmakers Albert Hughes, Allen Hughes (Menace II Society) and John Singleton(Boyz n
the Hood) ... two films that fell just short of being included in this Top 25 list ... I would have
to say that City of God makes both of those films seem like they are about Boy Scouts rather
than street gangsters.

Do you know the number one characteristic of a great film? Among other things, is when the
movie seems more like a real-life documentary than an actual fictional feature-film. This
movie feels so real and raw, that you actually feel like you were watching a documentary on
life in the slums of Brazil.

A well-known comedian once said there is a difference between "growing up poor, and
growing up PO." To be "po" makes being conventionally poor seem wealthy. The main
protagonist of this film is PO. The ghettos and slums of Rio de Janeiro make just about any
ghetto in one of the major cities in the United States seem like an affluent neighborhood.

Gangs ruled in Rio in the latter half of the 20th Century. They paid off most of the easily
corruptible cops, and they intimidated almost all of the citizens they came in contact with. If
you even halfway attempted to challenge one or more of the major gangsters in Rio, you were
pretty much asking for a death wish.

Imagine living a life as a child, teenager, and young adult where you could not depend on the
police to "protect" you in any genuine manner? What if your manhood was challenged by
gangsters everyday of every week of every month of every year?

Even though the movie is in subtitles, you must see this film. You have too. I guarantee you
that any man from the U.S will watch this film, and afterwards say, "I thought I had it bad
here!! Wow. Those guys growing up in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s in Brazil REALLY had it
rough!!!" Yep, yep. For sure.
#6 - Risky Business (1983)Google Images
#6 - Risky Business (1983)
General Premise: A high school senior (Tom Cruise) who has yet to lose his virginity is
given the house to himself for approximately a week while his parents are out of town on
vacation.

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: Hollywood has produced a lot of "coming of
age" (i.e., transitioning from a teenager to a young adult) movies over the years, and Risky
Business is arguably the best one I have seen to date that was geared toward young men from
middle class families in my generation.

Risky Business was the first feature-film that I ever saw as many as four times at the movie
theater. There was just something about the character of Joel Goodson (Cruise) that resonated
with me, even though I am Black and the character of Goodson was Caucasian. Joel's mother
and father reminded me of my own parents on those occasions where the left me with the
house for two days or longer.

Whenever there is a discussion about having sex for the first time and losing your virginity,
most films and television shows put more emphasis on that storyline from the girl's point of
view than they do the guy's. Most of the guys I have been friends with lost their virginity as
young as 12, and usually by no later than the age of 22 or 23. A very small percentage might
have lost their virginity later in life.

Joel does what most high school age male virgins do: He tries to pretend that he has already
gotten laid before, but all of his close friends know he has not. A friend of his by the name of
Miles (Curtis Armstrong) has an idea to call up some professional Call Girls and upscale
Erotic Escorts to help Joel experience his "first time." Joel is not down, but Miles forces the
issue.

An attractive Call Girl (Rebecca De Mornay) eventually shows up at Joel's house, the movie
takes off from there.

The key line to remember from this film comes from Miles: "Sometimes you just gotta say
'What the fu**' and make your move. Saying 'what the fu**' gives you freedom ....
freedom brings opportunities ... and opportunities make your future."

For better or for worse, I have lived most of my adult life on that philosophy.

You want to approach a woman who you think is "out of your league?" Sometimes ... you
just gotta say, "What the fu**." Make your move.
#5 - The Pursuit of Happyness (2006) Google Images
#5 - The Pursuit of Happyness (2006)
General Premise: Based on the real-life personal and professional experiences of a
successful investment banker named Christopher Gardner, this film centers on a single
father (Will Smith) whose wife leaves him, and he now has the challenge of both making
ends meet and raising a young son (Jaden Smith).

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: I am man enough to confess that after I saw The
Pursuit of Happyness for the first time, I sat in my movie theater seat, all by myself, and shed
a few tears.

If you have always had an "easy life," or grew up with a 'silver spoon' in your mouth, you
will not be able to relate to Smith's character in this film. You might try to, but you just will
not be able to.

I have been broke and unemployed before. Not in a situation where I had to raise a son ...
thank goodness ... but I have had periods where I was broke and unemployed for weeks,
months, or even a year or longer. A lot of men I know have. Black, White, Asian, and
Hispanic.

I remember one time years ago I asked my brother, "Why doesn't someone make a movie
about a guy who is just having a hard time finding a job? That is a real-life challenge for
some men!" With this movie, well ... there you go.

This is one of Will Smith's best movies ever.

#4 - The Shawshank Redemption (1994) Google Images
#4 - The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
General Premise: Andy Defresne (Tim Robbins) is wrongfully convicted for the murder of
his cheating wife and her lover, and begins a life term in prison. While imprisoned, he learns
lessons and becomes friends with a well-respected inmate by the name of "Red" (Morgan
Freeman), and as their friendship grows, they both end up leaving an indelible impression on
one another.

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: I cannot imagine what it feels like to be locked
up in prison for a crime that you know you did not commit.

I would literally go crazy. I would be so full of anger, I would probably be seething every
minute of every hour of every day. I would constantly be asking God, "Why me? Why am I
being subjected to this when I am innocent?"

Hence, the main storyline of The Shawshank Redemption. Andy is put in prison for life as a
result of being convicted of a murder that he in reality did not commit.

So ... are you going to be like me and be "angry" each and everyday .... or are you going to
muster up the mental and emotional strength to deal with the circumstances that have
unfortunately been thrust upon you?

When unexpected and seemingly unfair episodes of adversity come your way, you are just
going to have to learn to deal with them like a man. Not like a boy, but like a man.

I believe everything in life happens for a reason. As they say, everything that happens in your
life that doesn't kill you has the potential to make you stronger and more resilient.

If you are young, keep these adages in the front of your mind. Who said that life was
guaranteed to be fair?
#3 - The Dark Knight Trilogy: Batman Begins (2005) / The Dark Knight (2008) / The Dark
Knight Rises (2012) Google Images
#3 - The Dark Knight Trilogy: Batman Begins (2005) /
The Dark Knight (2008) / The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
General Premise: Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) witnesses his parents get murdered in cold
blood by a ruthless gunman as a child, and grows up full of anger and a strong desire for
revenge. He later learns that there is a difference between wanting revenge and wanting
justice, and he commits himself to fighting the criminal underworld without the use of gun
violence.

IMDb link | IMDb link | IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link | Wikipedia.org link | Wikipedia.org link

Why these films earned a spot in my Top 25: I initially attempted to choose just one of the
three movies in this very entertaining trilogy, but I just could not bring myself to leave out
even one of the three films written and directed by Christopher Nolan.

These three "Batman" films are all about making the transition from a boy to a teenager to an
adult to a man with character and integrity.

How would you feel growing up if you saw your parents murdered in front of your eyes? The
term "angry" seems like too much of an understatement for me. Many of us would probably
grow up to become a revenge-seeking psychopath and/or sociopath.

The first temptation might be to get our hands on a gun, and try to kill anyone and everyone
who is associated with the people who murdered our parents. Well, that is what Bruce Wayne
(Bale) does too. He grabs a gun, and is ready to kill the man he knows is responsible for
murdering his parents.

Then, Wayne slowly but surely learns that there is a difference between seeking violent
revenge and seeking meaningful justice.

Revenge can go on forever. You kill my friend, I kill yours. You kill my spouse, I kill yours.
You kill my son or daughter, I kill your son or daughter. You kill my parents, I kill yours.
When will it end?
I do not look at The Dark Knight trilogy as simply a series of "comic book hero" movies.
These are "What choices and decisions does a real man make when he wants to see the 'good'
in society conquer the 'bad' in society?"

There are some 'bad guys' that want money, power, fame, and vengeance. Then, there are
other psychotic 'bad guys' who just want to see the world burn.

Remember: It is not who you are underneath that really makes a difference. It is what you
do in life that defines you.

#2 - Collateral (2004) Google Images

#2 - Collateral (2004)
General Premise: A professional contract killer (Tom Cruise) quickly develops a friendly
rapport with a Los Angeles based taxicab driver (Jamie Foxx), and later holds the cab driver
hostage as he proceeds to systematically murder various high profile witnesses in an
upcoming trial against a powerful South American drug lord.

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: THIS is my movie. Anyone who is close friends
with me knows that this is my all-time most watched movie in the history of movies. If you
combine the number of times I saw this film at the movie theater, on cable television, and on
DVD, I would estimate that I have watched this movie somewhere between 75 and 90 times.
Seriously. (Four other films I have watched at least fifty times would include Heat, Batman
Begins, Beverly Hills Cop, and A Few Good Men)

When you think of developing a stronger sense of backbone and personal confidence to meet
the challenges of life and deal with the unexpected episodes of adversity you may face as a
man, you probably would estimate that this process is going to take months and/or years.

Imagine if you were forced to make the transition from a complacent, semi-wimpy layman to
a heroic man with backbone in just a few hours? This is the position that Jamie Foxx's
character of Max Durocher finds himself in after picking up what he thinks is just another
pedestrian looking to be transported from point A to point B.
In less than a half-hour, Durocher quickly realizes that his taxicab rider by the name of
"Vincent" (Cruise) is actually a professional hit man and a homicidal sociopath with no sense
of empathy for human life, and no sense of remorse after killing people.

I have heard many naive types say, "Acting is easy. Anyone can be a good actor or actress."
What if I put you in an environment where you were in the company of hardened criminals
and gangsters, and you had to 'pretend' like you were a hard-nosed gangster yourself as well
as a talented and ferocious hit man? Could you pull it off? What if I told you that if your
"performance" failed to be believable, you would be killed instantly?

There is a scene in this film where Vincent puts Max in that very position described above.
The scene is powerful. Actor Javier Bardem plays the feared drug lord, and his brief cameo
performance is outstanding.

Sometimes developing the balls and backbone you need to be a "real man" might have to
happen quicker than you think, so you have to always be prepared to do whatever it takes to
save your life, and lives of those who you are most fond of. This was the challenge for Max
in this film.

#1 - Braveheart (1995) Google Images

#1 - Braveheart (1995)
General Premise: Based on the life of 13th Century Scottish warrior William Wallace (Mel
Gibson) who led the Scots against King Edward I of England during the First War of Scottish
Independence.

IMDb link

Wikipedia.org link

Why this film earned a spot in my Top 25: Think about this for a moment. Let's say that
you are happy and at peace. You have a lovely girlfriend, and all of your good friends live in
the same neighborhood and community. You work hard and play hard.

Then, all of the sudden, some men from another community or region of the world say to
you, "We want you to be our bitch. And ... we want to have sex with all of your girlfriends
and wives. In other words, you will be our man slaves, you can only have sex with your
women after we have sex with them, and you will always worship us, be fearful of us, do
what we tell you to do, and always be subservient to us."

Would you just take that? Or would you stand up for yourself, rally your friends to do the
same, and protect those you love and everything you have worked hard for?

That might not be the most accurate description of the film Braveheart, but essentially, that is
what the story is about.

In past centuries, this type of "I want to conquer your country, dominate all of the men in
your country, and rape and have sex with all of the women in your country" mentality was
not uncommon.

Plain and simple, there are good men in society, and there are bad men. The latter are very
egotistically competitive with an insatiable thirst for power, wealth, sex, and world resources,
and they really do not care how they go about getting each of these things. Ethics? Yeah,
right. Morals? Give me a break. Compassion and empathy for others? Stop talking like a girl.

If you took away man's greed for money, power, sex, and the world's natural resources, I
would assert that the days of wars and violence would end practically overnight. Realistically
though, that will never, ever happen. There will always be men who want way more money
than you, want way more power than you, and want to have sex with way more women than
you. These men want to be able to look you in your eyes and say, "I own you. You are my
bitch."

Are you going to let them get away with that?

William Wallace of Scotland, played wonderfully by Gibson, said, "I will be no other man's
bitch. Even if it means I will be imprisoned or murdered." Okay, Gibson's character did not
actually say that in the movie ... but for all practical purposes, that is essentially what he said.

You cannot allow others to 'punk' you and disrespect you ALL YOUR LIFE. Stand up for
yourself, your beliefs, and your convictions. That is what being a man is all about.
Ladies: Do you ALWAYS
expect to have sex when you
"go back to his place?"
This will be my first article for the Examiner.com that I have ever written while
outside of the United States! As I am writing this, I am experiencing the last evening
of my first visit ever to Germany (Berlin specifically). I have had a great time here
interacting with the men and women of this country, as well as a few men and
women from neighboring countries such as Belgium, France, Switzerland, The
Netherlands and one or two other countries.

I was a featured speaker for a two-day event known as "The Direct Dating Summit
Weekend Conference for Men" which is designed to help single heterosexual men
from as young as eighteen to as old as their late fifties or early sixties learn how to
approach new women of interest with more confidence, initiate and maintain a
conversation with them, and ultimately create some degree of romantic and/or
sexual chemistry with them.

I have had many discussions with the men I have met related to the contents of my
books, and the general subject of being "direct" versus "indirect" with
women (Without giving too lengthy of a description or definition, to be 'indirect' with
women means to engage in a lengthy degree of entertaining 'small talk' prior to
letting women know your romantic or sexual desires, interests, and intentions; To be
'direct' would represent when a man is upfront and straightforward with women within
the first few minutes of the conversation regarding the fact that he wants to date
them or have [casual] sex with them).

In addition to being a book author and freelance columnist, I am also a professional

dating coach (think Will Smith's character in the 2005 film, Hitch) who offers
telephone consultations and "One-on-One Coaching Sessions" with clients all over
the world that center on the benefits of being direct with women instead of indirect.

If there is at least one criticism I tend to receive from some men who have read my
books or listen to me speak at workshops, it would be comments such as, "Alan ... I
respect you and I love your books, but you are almost TOO direct. Many of the
stories I have read about you suggest that you let women know you want to have
sex with them almost within minutes after you have made their acquaintance for the
first time. Shouldn't you be at least a tad bit more 'vague' and 'ambiguous' about your
sexual desires and interests in your first conversation with a woman?"

My argument always has been and always will be an emphatic "no." I believe the
best form of interpersonal communication with anyone is verbal communication that
is upfront, to-the-point, and straightforwardly honest. Others believe in a style that is
more "beat-around-the-bush," and if that works for them, more power to them. For
me, an "indirect" interpersonal communication style with women leaves too much
room for confusion, miscommunications, and misinterpretations.

One discussion that happened today here in Berlin that started out fairly lighthearted,
but quickly turned into a more serious and even somewhat 'contentious' debate, was
when some of the men I was in conversation with said that they believed the best
way to let a woman know you want to have sex with her is to simply say, "Hey ... you
want to go back to my place?"

I remember interviewing an attraction and seduction expert by the name of Paul

Janka a few years back on my talk radio podcast program, Upfront &
Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie. This was one of the first interviews I had
on my show that started out rather "friendly," but soon became full of tension and
disagreement. It started when I asked Janka was he 'direct' or 'indirect' with women.
He said he was 'direct' ... but when he described his approach in full detail, I told him
that I felt his approach toward women was actually more 'indirect' than 'direct.'

Janka went on to say (paraphrasing his words a bit), "I would never tell a woman
straight-up that I want have sex with her (before going to his place or her place).
That would kill the sexual tension and mood between us. I just simply invite her over
to my place, and if she agrees to join me, I engage in a few minutes of entertaining
conversation with her at my place and then I take the initiative to start 'making the
moves' on her." My response was, "Then that is not a truly 'direct' approach. What if
she thinks she is going back to your place just to relax and converse?"

I used this approach many times in college. Many times when a party was coming to
an end, I would chat with a woman in a flirtatious manner, and say, "you want to go
back to my apartment / dormitory room?" If they said, "yes," I would ASSUME this
meant they wanted to have sex. I would estimate that 60-70% I was right in my
confident assumption. It was that remaining 30-40% of the time that I was wrong in
my assumption that left me feeling agitated and frustrated.

Sometimes, when I would do as Janka said ... and simply started "making the
moves" ... the women would respond, "Is that why you think I came to your room /
apartment / dormitory room? To have sex with you?!? Nope. Not happening. I
thought you just wanted a more private place to continue the conversation we started
at the party." My inner reaction (and sometimes I would verbalize it) would be,
"Surely you jest. You HAD TO KNOW that I invited you back to my place to have
sex. You HAD TO KNOW that!" In these women's defense, I had not made my
sexual intentions specifically clear to them.

Again, roughly 2/3 of the women I brought back to my place were on the same page
as me. The other third were on Venus while I was in residence on Mars. (In partial
defense of Janka, and others like him, one film that seems to endorse this approach
was the 2011 romantic comedy, Crazy, Stupid, Love.; In this film, the womanizer
and informal pick-up artist 'Jacob Palmer' [Actor Ryan Gosling] simply says to the
women he meets in his favorite bar, "You wanna get outta here?"And then he takes
the women to his place and has sex with them)
So, I want to ask all of the women who are reading this article right now a very
important question: When a man meets you at a bar, restaurant, nightclub, or other
social event, and at some point says, "Listen ... you want to go back to my place?"
would you automatically assume that you and that particular man are going to
inevitably have sex? At least two women here in Germany said, "Yes Alan ... I
always assume that I am going to have sex when a man invites me back to his place
late at night." Many of the women I am acquainted with in the United States have told
me different.

Please offer your opinion on Twitter, Facebook, or private Email. I want to conduct
my own "informal survey" of sorts. I will publish some of the more interesting
feedback I receive in a future article.

Since my approach is far different from Janka's and others, what do I say to women
when I want a one-night stand or weekend fling with them? If you want the lengthy,
detailed version ... pick up a copy of my book, Oooooh . . . Say it Again: Mastering
the Fine Art of Verbal Seduction and Aural Sex. The short version would be I use
a combination of a low-volume, semi-whisper version of my voice, my overall
conversational skills, ultra-confident direct eye-contact, and a high degree of "erotic
dirty talk" to seduce women into [casual] sex. I typically know for a fact before a
woman even comes to my place (or before I visit her place) if we are having sex or
not. I do not really like to leave a sexual interaction with a woman up to "chance"
(leaving things up to chance is where the frequently used term "he got lucky" comes
from).

When you do what I do, it is so interesting to converse with men from so many
different countries and so many varied ethnicities and cultural backgrounds, because
once you get deep in a conversation, you realize that all single heterosexual men
have many of the same desires and challenges as it relates to women. No matter
what country, all men are either looking for a) a wife, b) a long-term romantic partner,
or at minimum, c) a series of short-term non-monogamous casual sex partners
and/or "friends-with-benefits" partners (being real, most of my clients are looking for
advice related to "C" more so than "A" or "B").

I will miss the discussions I have had here in Germany. Met a great group of guys
(and ladies too!). They said they will always associate the phrase "say it again" with
me for the rest of their lives.

Now if you will excuse me, I have to rest up for my flight back to "The States" (as
most Europeans refer to The USA) by listening to Wayne Newton sing "Danke
Schoen."

P.S. Female readers ... do not forget to offer me feedback on the line, "You want to
go back to my place?"
'Maybe' women will usually
leave men feeling agitated
and bitter in the long run
When I was recently in Berlin, Germany for The Direct Dating Summit Weekend
Conference for Men (April 27-28, 2013), I engaged in numerous conversations
related to dating, relationships, attraction, seduction, and interpersonal
communication patterns and tendencies between men and women in general.

Among the many entertaining and enlightening discussions I engaged in with men,
women or both, one centered on the idea of "Yes" women, "No" women, and
"Maybe" women. Over the years, I have noticed that a high percentage of Dating
Coaches and Seduction Gurus tend to place all single women in one of these three
categories. I remember when I interviewed both Justin Wayne PUA on my talk
radio show as well as Ms. Kezia Noble, both Dating Coaches said they generally
believed that all women fell into the "Yes, I am definitely interested in having sex with
you" category, the "No, I am not interested in having sex with you" category, and/or
the "Maybe ... just maybe ... I might decide to have sex with you at some point in the
future" category.

The readers of my books know that I have four similar, but yet distinctively different
categories. The categories of (single) women that I feel all single heterosexual men
will inevitably cross paths with are "Reciprocators," "Rejecters," "Pretenders," and
"Timewasters."

Brief assessment of each:

Reciprocators - These are what most other Dating Coaches and Seduction Gurus
would call "Yes" women. If you are a man, once you let these women know that you
want long-term sex, short-term sex, monogamous sex, or non-monogamous sex,
these women are going to quickly and straightforwardly reciprocate your sexual
desires and interests.

Rejecters - These are women who would be categorized by my fellow Dating

Coaches and Seduction Gurus as "No" women. No matter how much you flatter
these women, spend money on these women, or persistently attempt to romance
these women or seduce them, they have already made up their mind that they are
never, ever going to have sex with you. Ever.

Pretenders - My third paperback entitled Oooooh . . . Say it Again: Mastering the

Fine Art of Verbal Seduction and Aural Sex is pretty much all about women who
fall into this category. These women tend to be your "conservative prudes in the
streets, but an uninhibited and kinky freak in the sheets" types. The aforementioned
Justin Wayne PUA and Kezia Noble refer to these women as "Maybe" women.
Personally, I refer to these women as "Slow Yes" women.

Timewasters - My last book, available exclusively on Amazon.com as an eBook,

centers on this category of women. This is the category of women that usually
causes the most disagreement and debate between me and other Dating Coaches.
For example, Ms. Noble believes there is no such thing as a "Timewaster." She
believes a Timewaster is nothing more than a more challenging version of a
'Pretender.' Young Brother Wayne essentially said the same thing. I vehemently
disagreed with both of them. I tend to refer to Timewasters as "Slow No" women.

The general consensus from others tends to go along these lines:

"Yes" women > "Maybe" women > "No" women.

I know whenever I worked as a salesman of some sort, it was taught to me that a

"maybe" is always better than a flat-out "no." For purposes related to dating and
relationships, and more specifically sex between a man and a woman, I disagree.

My assertion goes something like this:

A definite "Yes" (i.e., quick, straightforward reciprocation) > A definite "No" (i.e.,
quick, straightforward rejection) > A fickle, wishy-washy, indecisive "Well, I might be
interested in having sex with you at some point ... but then again, I might not be"
(i.e., misleading and manipulative game-playing)

I always hear many men say, "Emotions complicate relationships between men and
women." I disagree. I hear many women say, "Having sex too quickly or too
frequently complicates things between men and women." Again, I disagree.

My emotions have very rarely, if ever 'complicated' a relationship of mine with a

woman. Same with sex. I have had a number of both long-term and short-term
sexual relationships with women that I would never deem as "complicated."

The primary factors that 'complicate' most romantic and sexual relationships
between men and women are:

1) Blatant and frequent dishonesty by one of the partners, if not both involved in the
relationship;

2) Frequently exhibiting behavior that is disingenuous, insincere, or misleading

regarding what your true long-term desires, interests, and intentions are;

3) Consistently exhibiting behavior that is fickle, indecisive, and wishy-washy.

(As I have alluded to already, I am concentrating on factor #3 for the purposes of this
article)

Just about everyone is guilty of being a wee bit indecisive AT TIMES. If you are fickle
in your decision making "every now and then," then you do not warrant harsh
criticism from me or others. On the other hand, when you demonstrate a long-
standing pattern of changing your mind back and forth regarding your romantic
and/or sexual interest in someone, that is a huge red flag.

When I reflect on the women I have interacted with over the years, I can honestly
say ... I have never harbored any "ill feelings" or any degree of animosity toward a
woman who I would categorize as a Reciprocator or a Rejecter. For the most part,
same thing with women who I categorize as Pretenders. Women from that group
have left me a tad bit agitated at times ... maybe for an hour or two, or a day or
two ... but in the end, I was usually exchanging pleasurable orgasms with women
from that group.

But the Timewasters (or again, what I refer to as the "Slow No" women)? Just about
every woman in my life that I have had a major "falling out" with, and our series of
interactions ended with me having bad and bitter feelings toward them and them
calling me names like "a**hole" and "jerk" were the women from this category.

I remember once, just a few years ago, my last serious girlfriend told me, "Alan ...
you seem to be unwilling to recognize or acknowledge any sort of 'gray areas' that
develop when men and women interact with each other. You like for things to be cut
and dry, black and white, either, or. Human beings are more complex than that."

For me, it is not so much that I do not believe "gray areas" exist - I am sure they do
indeed exist - but my take on it is that more often than not, these 'gray areas' do
not have to exist. What most people call a "gray area," I more so tend to refer to it as
the "vague and ambiguous zone of manipulative head games." Many men and
women love to mislead and manipulate others. That is a fact. And the best way to do
it is to avoid behavior that is cut and dry, black and white, and specific and definite.

Either you tasted jerk chicken wings and you liked them ... or you tasted jerk chicken
wings and you did not like them. Do you really need eight-to-ten weeks to "figure out"
if you truly like jerk chicken wings? (Just for the record, if you dislike jerk chicken
wings ... you and I could never, ever be long-term friends. Just sayin')

It has never taken me many weeks or a number of months to decide if I wanted a

long-term monogamous sexual relationship with a woman, a long-term non-
monogamous sexual relationship with a woman, a short-term monogamous
relationship, a short-term non-monogamous relationship, or no sexual relationship
with them at all. It might take me a few minutes or a few hours to decide. At most, it
might take a week or two for me to arrive at a definite decision. But more than three
or four weeks? Never.

I always say to people: At any given moment in time ... you always know what
you want. You may not know what you want from others a month from now, three
months from now, six months from now, or a year or longer from now. But right
now ... as you are reading this very article ... you know exactly and specifically what
you want from others and what you do not want from others.

Right now, at this very moment in time, I know for a hard fact if I want something
romantic with one or more of the women in my life, a relationship that is casual and
purely sexual, or a friendship that is strictly platonic. I cannot think of one woman
who I am currently acquainted with who makes me feel like, "Well ... I'm not sure ... I
am kinda, sorta interested in dating you ... but I am kinda, sorta not." Uhm .... no.

What are some of the more specific reasons why some women become "Slow Yes"
women while other women exhibit the behavior a "Slow No" woman? (Warning:
Shameless plug coming) READ MY BOOKS.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have to return to reading the article entitled, "Why there
is a 50% chance that Chicago Bulls' PG Derrick Rose might play againstLeBron
James and the Miami Heat in Game 5 of their NBA series."

Adidas led us to believe that "Fast Don't Lie."

A "Slow No" millionaire athlete does lie.

Just a little bit.

Every now and then.

Delusional women (and
men) need to wake up
before anger and
resentment take over
Roughly two weeks ago, I was interviewed on the BlogTalkRadio Internet Radio
Network by Host Chitra Agrawal about my popular talk radio podcast
program, Upfront & Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie. I was invited by Ms.
Agrawal, who is BlogTalkRadio's Director of Marketing, because I recently
celebrated six years worth of episodes and interviews with some of the world's
top dating and relationships experts, book authors, advisors, and other notable
guests.

During the interview, I happened to mention to Ms. Agrawal that not only do I engage
in a high number of telephone, email, and Skype consultations with many male
clients across the globe, but I also have a small percentage of women who pay me
money for advice related to their love life and/or sex life.

To my pleasant surprise, I had a handful of women who wrote me after listening to

the interview with Chitra, and they asked me what type of advice I offer women. My
simple answer was, "I offer no fluff, no fairy-tale, no B.S. type advice. I give advice
that is real, raw, and sometimes harsh. But to toot my horn, my advice has never
steered a woman in the wrong direction." Subsequently, two of the women who
wrote me ended up paying for a consultation with me.

Just about all of my female clients tend to fall into one of two categories: 1) Women
who feel like they are "too prudish" and/or too sexually conservative, inhibited, and
'uptight' who want to become more open-minded, free-spirited, and erotically
uninhibited in order to better please and satisfy their significant other, or if they are
single, to improve their chances of attracting and maintaining the interest of desirable
men, or 2) Women who are currently a man's mistress, 'on-the-side honey,' or booty
call 'jumpoff' who desperately want to be 'upgraded' to become that man's wife or
long-term girlfriend.

I love conversing with the women from category #1, but I sometimes get agitated and
even saddened listening to the stories from women in category #2.

If Jabari Parker, one of the top high school basketball players from the Class of
2013, were to tell friends and acquaintances that he dreams of playing in the NBA
one day soon, most would call him "ambitious." If former college prospect Lenny
Cooke was to express the same ambition to his friends and acquaintances, they
would more-than-likely perceive him as being "delusional."
Most dictionaries generally define being 'delusional' as a state of mind you transition
into when you begin to express ambitions that are incredibly unrealistic, or when you
hold on to a set of beliefs and opinions that you believe to be true and valid, yet all of
the evidence around you suggests that they are anything but true and valid.

I would personally define being 'delusional' as when you have found yourself in that
"middle ground" between operating in reality ... and operating in a world that is purely
fantasy that has been created by your own mind and/or ego.

Initially, I was going to just pick on the women. Realistically though, there are
delusional men out here in society too. I'll start with my admonishment of the ladies:

A friend of mine, Zondra Hughes, recently wrote a piece for the Huffington Post
entitled, Relationship Hell: 5 Women You NEVER Want to Become. I have
observed the behavior of all five of the women Zondra described, but again -
referring back to my "category #2" from above - I could most relate to Zondra's
description of what she referred to as a "Side-Chick Suzy."

Both of the women who purchased my consultations had "Side-Chick Suzy" type
confessions and stories. One woman, who I will call "Linda," is the mistress of a
married man. Linda said that this married man is the best sex lover she has ever had
in her life (can we all say, "whipped?"). Initially, their relationship was strictly a sexual
one. Now, sadly, she has fallen in love with this man (realistically though ... a lot of
women make the mistake of thinking that they are "in love" with a guy after a guy
consistently handles his business in bed. #OxytocinHormoneInFullEffect).

I was not easy on this woman during our consultation. I made her repeat, "I am
[insert the married man's first name here]'s personal beck-and-call [sex] buddy." She
repeated it. Why did I have her repeat this, among other things? To wake her up.
Linda is never, ever going to become this man's second wife or long-term girlfriend.
Ever. Here is the deal ladies: If a man has intentions of upgrading you, he is usually
going to do it within a few days, a few weeks, or at least a few months after he starts
seeing you. If you have been that man's "on-the-side honey" or mistress for a year or
longer, there is a 99.999% chance that you will remain nothing more than a
dependable, secondary sex partner for that man indefinitely.

The second woman I had a consultation with, who I will call "Laura," had a similar
situation. The man she is currently seeing is not married, or even romantically
involved with a woman. He is just a straight-up player and incorrigible womanizer.
She said he is currently exchanging orgasms with at least five or six different
women (can we all say, "harem?"), and she acknowledged that she is one of the
women in his "stable." Like Linda, she sang the praises of this guy's sexual prowess.
She said he has caused her to have more multiple orgasms than any other sex
partner she's ever had (which is probably why he is able to have his 'harem' of
women remain loyal to him). Laura, also like Linda, now thinks she is "in love" with
this top-notch player, and aspires to be his "#1 woman."

What do you think I had her repeat a dozen times?

I would say over the last five to ten years or so, I have probably had close to fifty
women share "Side-Chick Suzy" stories with me. Why do these women not realize
that they are being DELUSIONAL in thinking that they will one day be the "main
woman" of their man of interest?

You see, men are different. I've been a woman's "#2" or "#3" sex partner before, and
guess what? That is what I wanted to be. I did not want to be that woman's #1 guy.
The vast majority of men I know are like me. When a man is having regular or semi-
regular sex with a woman who is married or has a serious boyfriend, it is extremely
rare that this man is going to aspire to be that woman's future husband or long-term
boyfriend. For starters, we do not respect a woman who cheats on their man with us.
So right there, a woman has established a big ass "red flag" in our minds. A woman
who is loyal to her man is arguably the #1 attribute that makes a woman "wife
material" or "long-term girlfriend material" in the eyes of most men.

Take the popular television drama, Scandal. If the main character's name was
"Oliver Pope," and the fictional President's name was "Felicia Grant," Oliver would
not be trying to be the President's next husband. He would just be content with
exchanging orgasms with the Lady President for as long as possible. Many men's
attitude tends to be, "I'll let the woman's husband deal with all of the 'drama' and
arguments and stuff. I just want sex. Nothing more, nothing less." That version of
'Scandal' would be canceled after three or four episodes, and many protests from
women's empowerment and/or feminists groups.

This is not to say that men do not exhibit their own brand of delusional behavior. Men
are delusional with many women too. The difference is, 90-99% of the time, the
delusional men are not even having sex with their objects of affection and desire.

The most frequent scenario involving delusional men is usually when a man is a
woman's "platonic play brother," but deep-down, he aspires to have a romantic
and/or sexual relationship with the woman. More often than not, that woman is never
going to have sex with that man. She is just toying with him, misleading and
manipulating him, and looking to be flattered, entertained, or wined and dined (my
last book discusses this in detail).

I talk to men in this category on a monthly, if not weekly basis. I refer to the man's
scenario as "FunClubbin'". If money is being spent on 'wining and dining' a woman,
my fraternity brothers while in college used to refer to this as "Ice Creaming
women" (i.e., buying women gifts or treating women to free meals and concerts with
the hope and expectation that this woman will eventually agree to date you or sleep
with you).

I can name at least a half dozen times in my life when I was guilty of FunClubbin'
with women. I would "pretend" to be content with nothing more than a purely platonic
friendship with a woman for a period of days, weeks, months, or in a few cases,
years, knowing damn well that I either wanted to date that woman or have [casual]
sex with that woman. And each time, when the "friendship" did not transition into
something more romantic or sexual, I ended up feeling angry, bitter, regretful, and
resentful.
If you are a woman who has a history of being a "Side-Chick Suzy" type, you need to
wake up right now. Do not use the excuse of "But he behaves like he truly cares
about me..." or "He sometimes tells me that he and I are soulmates!" C'mon son.
C'mon (yes, even though you are a woman, I am calling you 'son' in this
instance). WAKE UP. Quit being delusional. Do not confuse "good sex" with "love."
This is a mistake many women have made for decades. Actions speak louder than
words. I am even more harshly critical of the women who deal with a man who
straightforwardly tells them that they are just "one of many" in his stable.BELIEVE
HIM when he tells you this. "Know your role" is what many pimps, players, and
cheating husbands tend to say repeatedly to their Side-Chick Suzy types.

If you are a man who has a history of FunClubbin' with women ... proceed at your
own risk. You are asking to experience feelings of anger, frustration, regret and
bitterness at some point in the future. Soon, the people around you will begin to
perceive you as what is known as a "misogynist" (i.e., a man who passionately hates
women). Just because you can leave a woman feeling flattered and entertained on a
regular basis does not mean that this woman is going to spread her legs for you. You
need to realize that you are the man she wants to spend time with when she
is BORED ... but NOT HORNY. When she is horny, she is calling up guys like the
one who is making my new client Laura moan and scream his name out loud just
before she has another powerful orgasm. WAKE UP DUDE. Quit being delusional.

There is a line from the movie Iron Man 3 where Tony Stark (played by actor Robert
Downey, Jr.) says, "We create our own demons." When you allow yourself to
maintain delusional aspirations of being a man or woman's "#1 companion," when
that particular man or woman does not feel the same way about you, you are
potentially creating your own demon.

Did you just hear the doorbell? Go answer the door.

Harsh reality is patiently waiting to have a conversation with you.

Female readers express agreements and
disagreements to columnist's last article
This will be my 11th edition of "Feedback from Readers."

If you are a regular reader and loyal follower of my column, you already know that
after every five-to-seven articles of mine that get published, I tend to feature
responses I receive from my male and female readers. Usually I receive these
responses either from my personal Email address (alanrogercurrie@modeone.net),
or via my Facebook inbox.

Click here to read my previous edition of "Feedback from Readers."

Usually, I tend to feature only one response for each of my last five, six, or seven
articles that I have written over the past few weeks or months. In this edition of
"Feedback from Readers," I am going to do things a little different. Why? The vast
majority of the responses I received from readers (and more specifically, female
readers) had to do specifically with my very last article entitled,Delusional women
(and men) need to 'wake up' before anger and resentment takes over.

The "good" news regarding this most recent article: My last article attracted the
most page views and "likes" (over 1,000) of any article I have ever written and
had published since August 2009. Before this last article, the other article of mine
that had previously garnered the most page views and "likes" within the first 48-72
hours after it was published was my article entitled, When you understand the
Madonna / Whore Complex, you pretty much understand men (which in its own
way, indirectly relates to the content of this most recent article).

The "bad" news: I received at least a dozen or more responses from female readers
who were either angry about much of what I expressed in that article, or at
minimum, had passionate disagreements about what I wrote, and they did not
hesitate to write me and let me know.

In fairness to me though, I received many more responses from women who agreed
with just about everything I wrote than I received responses from women who
disagreed with what I wrote.

Per usual, I generally only highlight those responses from readers that fall into one
of these three categories:

1. A response that is representative of a strong disagreement to one or more of

the opinions I expressed in a previous article;
2. A response that is representative of a very strong agreement to one or more
of the opinions I expressed in a previous article;
 3. A desire for further clarification and understanding to something I
expressed or asserted in a previous article.

[Note: Also per usual, all first names have been changed for the sake of
anonymity, and many questions and/or comments may have been edited,
condensed or paraphrased to some degree in order to either save space or correct
spelling and grammatical errors]

Email feedback #1 in response to my article, "Delusional women (and men)

need to 'wake up' before anger and resentment takes over"

From Melissa W.:

"Hello Mr. Currie. I have read a few articles of yours on Facebook because you
and I are actually Facebook friends (even though I have never met you in person).
I typically enjoy reading your articles, but this last article of yours really left me
agitated!! I disagree with your opinion that most women who are 'Side-Chick Suzy'
types fall into that category voluntarily or enthusiastically. Most of my girlfriends
were duped and lied to by men. These men told my girlfriends that they were their
#1 girl, or would soon become their #1, only for them to later find out that what
they were told was a lie. I do not know ANY woman who would volunteer to be a
man's #2 or #3 woman. If you have met women like that, shame on them! They are
beyond delusional. They are trashy women with no self-respect!"

Alan's response: Tell me how you REALLY feel Melissa! Also, are you SURE
that it has been only your "girlfriends" who have been a 'Side-Chick Suzy,' and not
you? You seem really passionate about this issue for you to have never been a
man's mistress or 'on-the-side honey.' Just sayin'.

It is hard for me to believe that you have not met ONE woman who volunteered to
be a man's mistress or 'on-the-side honey.' If you are telling the truth, good for you.
I have been friends and acquaintances with both types. The group you describe ...
the women who are frequently lied to and misled by the men who they are dealing
with ... and the group I described in my article, which are the women who know
what category they initially signed up for, but later on, they start wanting more
from the man.

I am not going to be as harsh as you toward the women in the second group. I
would not label these women as "trashy" or "lacking self-respect." I would say
what I already said, which is that these women are a combination of delusional,
confused, and misguided. They initially thought they could be content with being a
man's on-the-side woman, but then they allowed their emotions to take over and it
motivated them to demand more. It's really that simple.
Email feedback #2 in response to my article, "Delusional women (and men)
need to 'wake up' before anger and resentment takes over"

From Tywanna C.:

"This is the third or fourth article of yours that I have read, but this one is the first
one to provoke me to want to write you and share my thoughts, agreements and
disagreements. I will confess Alan: I have been a Side-Chick Suzy type a handful of
times. Not one time did it end well for me. I would replace the word 'delusional'
with the words 'unrealistically hopeful.' I constantly and repeatedly found myself
believing that these men would see how special I was, and come to value and
appreciate what I had to offer them as a partner, and that I would get - as you put
it - 'upgraded.' That day never came, and it hurt. In one of your previous articles
(can't remember which one right now), you said that women tend to be most
attracted to men who are already receiving a lot of attention from women. On this
point, I will wholeheartedly agree with you. I am a sucker for a man who is
handsome, charming, and already being pursued by dozens of other women. His
popularity with other women makes me want him to be mine even more. I don't
know if I agree with your assertion that being a Side-Chick Suzy is all about good
sex though. Sex was not the only thing that attracted me to the men I was attracted
to, but of course, the good sex did not hurt! :) Overall, I thought the article was
enlightening and something I needed to read. Props to you Alan. I was 'asleep,' but
now thanks to your article, I am WIDE AWAKE!"

Alan's response: Shame on you Tywanna ... you have only read three or four of
my articles? You better catch up on all of the rest! (Note: I actually tweeted that
last comment of yours on Twitter yesterday)

For me, being "unrealistically hopeful" and being "delusional" are essentially
the same thing. The first phrase just sounds better to the mind, ego and ears. Hate
to break this to you Tywanna, but in each instance you knowingly accepted the role
of a Side-Chick Suzy, but later on you expected to be 'upgraded' to being that
woman's wife or long-term girlfriend, you were being delusional. I know it hurts
to hear that, but it is the truth.

As you alluded to, I make a comment in my third paperback, Oooooh . . . Say it

Again: Mastering the Fine Art of Verbal Seduction and Aural Sex, where I
say, "pu**y attracts pu**y." I have found this to be very true starting with as far
back as my high school days. Generally speaking, I have found that when women
observe that a man has a lot of women offering him their romantic and/or sexual
companionship, it makes even more women become curious, interested, and
intrigued in that particular man. Just a couple of months ago, I had a female friend
of mine call into my talk radio show and acknowledge this concept. I am pleased
that you also admitted that this has been the case with you.
Finally, I am just going to be real Tywanna. I have *never* met a woman who was
willing to be the mistress or 'on-the-side honey' of a man who was average or less-
than-average in bed. Never. The only exception would be if that man was very
wealthy and financially generous. Financial favors and great sex are really the only
two factors that motivate a woman to accept the role of a "#2 woman," "#3
woman," and so on. Keeping it "one-hundred" as they say, if a man is broke,
cheap, and sucks in bed, that man will never have the opportunity to have
"mistresses" or "women on the side." Just won't happen.

For example, just recently (and I posted this on Facebook), I had a female
acquaintance of mine tell me, "I would rather be apart of a man's 'harem' who was
really, really exciting and satisfying in bed than to be in an exclusive relationship
with a man who sucked in bed." I have met many women who have expressed
similar sentiments.

Email feedback #3 in response to my article, "Delusional women (and men)

need to 'wake up' before anger and resentment takes over"

From Amber Lynn M.:

"I listen to your radio show and have read many of your articles. Usually, I enjoy
reading your articles, but this one left a bad taste in my mouth. The part that
bothered me the most is when you said, 'We (men) do not want to be upgraded by a
woman who is cheating on her man because if she is cheating on her man she is
not worthy of our respect anyway' (or something like that). Talk about a double-
standard!! So it's okay for men to cheat, but not okay for men to cheat? You are so
sexist and one-sided!! And on to you specifically. I read where you said you don't
mind being a woman's #2 or #3 guy in bed. Really?!? All men are egotistical and
competitive. At least the men I have met in my life. I have a hard time believing
that you are totally 'cool' with being a woman's back-up guy. Needless to say, I
thought this article was chauvinistic and misogynistic. It did nothing to help
relationships between men and women."

Alan's response: Well, well, well . . . it sounds like someone is upset! Blunt truth?
At times, I love to get many of my (female) readers "riled up." It brings more
attention to them and provokes more feedback from them.

That said, I hate when men and women "misquote" me though. Amber Lynn, you
are very guilty of this in your response. I never said in my article that "it was okay
for men to cheat on their wives and girlfriends, but not okay for women to cheat on
their husbands and boyfriends." Show me one sentence where I wrote that. I
think cheating is wrong on both the part of men and women. If you would have
read any of my four books, you would already know that.
I was sincere when I said that in my younger years, I did not mind being a woman's
"on-the-side" guy (I say younger years, because as I matured, I stopped interacting
sexually with women who had husbands, boyfriends, or significant others). You
have to understand that men and women tend to think far differently when it comes
to casual sex relationships.

Here is the difference: many women typically feel angry, hurt, and frustrated
when a man expresses a desire to interact with them strictly for sexual pleasure and
satisfaction. That makes many women feel 'used' and even 'disrespected.' Men very
rarely if ever share these same feelings of disappointment or frustration.

Men are almost just the opposite. We feel angry and frustrated when a woman
wants to spend time with us for every reason BUT sex. I do not think I have ever
heard one man in my life complain, "That woman makes me so mad! She only
calls me up when she is horny and wants sex!!!" Uhm ..... no. I know, speaking
only for myself, I have never felt "used" or "disrespected" when a woman only
wanted sex from me, and nothing else. I usually felt flattered in those situations.
On the contrary, I tend to feel very agitated and egotistically frustrated when a
woman wants nothing but a purely platonic friendship with me. I literally
feel insulted when a woman wants me to be a platonic "play brother" to her rather
than a sex partner. I think I speak for the vast majority of single heterosexual men
in society. Bottom line: Men love to be treated like "sex objects."

Therefore, the vast majority of men do not have a problem being a woman's "secret
lover" or "on-the-side part-time lover." Again, most men actually prefer to have
just a strictly sexual relationship with a woman ... especially if it is a woman that
they cannot see being their future wife or long-term girlfriend.

Finally, I stand by my comment that most men do not respect women who
blatantly cheat on their husbands, boyfriends, or significant others. When men
"talk amongst themselves," this opinion is expressed very frequently and
emphatically. That is why you will you rarely see a man pleading with a woman to
'upgrade' him to the status of husband or long-term boyfriend when he is currently
that woman's 'on-the-side guy.' That might happen maybe 1% or 2% of the time,
but not much more. Men's feeling is, "If you are cheating on your current husband
with me, what would make me believe that you would be faithful to me if you and
I got married?" Simple logic, if you ask me.

Email feedback in response to my article, "'Maybe' women will usually leave

men feeling agitated and bitter in the long run"

From Danita S.:

"Alan, I found your article on 'maybe' women both entertaining and irritating. I
have often been a Quick No, Quick Yes, Slow No, and Slow Yes woman, depending
on the man I was dealing with. I never really saw this as a problem. Your article
seems to be very critical of the Slow No women, and you say or imply that all Slow
No women are gold diggers, users of men, or d*ck teasers. I disagree. What about
if we want to just take some time to really get to know a man? It's like you believe
that all women should be Quick Yes and Quick No women. That is not real life. I
am only a Quick Yes woman with a man who I click with immediately. But most
men, it takes time before I feel like I have clicked with them. What is wrong with
that?"

Alan's response: Thank you for writing me Danita, and as I promised you
privately, I will not use your real name or real email address in this article (and as
you can see, I have not.)

Right now, I want you to Google articles on women's interest in men, and more
specifically, how long it usually takes for a woman to decide if indeed she is
genuinely interested in having sex with a man. Do you know that research has
shown that the vast majority of women know within the first five-to-fifteen
minutes after they interact with a man whether or not they would potentially have
sex with them? 5-to-15 minutes!! My attitude is, why should I spend an hour, two
hours, or three hours conversing with a woman when 99% chance, that woman
knows at roughly the fifteen minute mark whether or not she is definitely going to
have sex with me, or definitely not going to have sex with me? That does not make
sense (in my mind).

So, you are trying to tell me that it takes days, weeks, or months to arrive at that
decision? If so, I say that is B.S. I usually know within the first three-to-five
minutes of my first conversation with a woman whether or not I would have sex
with her. Sometimes, I know just looking at a woman's physical appearance
whether or not I would have sex with her. I would assert that most men are like me.
It may take me a bit longer to decide if I want long-term vs. short-term sex, or
monogamous sex vs. non-monogamous sex ... but as far as sexual desire and
interest in general, it does not take the vast majority of men a long time to arrive at
their decision to have sex with a woman.

At least you are acknowledging that 'Slow No' women exist. Some women (and
even a few men) have argued with me that this category is not even valid. Some
men and women believe that there are only Quick Yes, Quick No, and Slow Yes
women. Read my latest book for more on my thoughts on "Timewaster" types.

Email feedback in response to my article, "Ladies: Do you ALWAYS expect to

have sex when you "go back to his place?"

From Nancy A.:

"Sounds like you had some interesting discussions during your visit to Berlin,
Germany! I had no idea that your message of 'Mode One' was worldwide. As far as
answering the question to your most recent article, I usually know a man wants to
have sex with me when he invites me to his house or apartment. I think all women
do. But that does not mean that all of us are going to agree to have sex with that
man. Believe it or not, I kind of agree with that guy Paul Janka. You said that
Janka believes that if a man is too quick to express that he wants to have sex with a
woman right away, then this might diminish some of the sexual tension. I partially
agree with that. I do not want a man to approach me at a bar or club and simply
say, 'Hey ... you want to go back to my place so I can f**k you?' That would
potentially be a major turn-off for me (unless he was really, really hot). I would
want him to take time to get to know me and slowly seduce me. That's just my
thoughts and opinion."

Alan's response: So ... you are a fan of Paul Janka. Interesting. Did he pay you to
write me and endorse him and his methods? No ... just kidding. I respect that you
have opinions that are different than my own.

Read my response to "Danita S." above. It sounds to me that you do not mind
being a "Slow Yes" woman (what I refer to in my books as "Pretenders"). I do not
have many problems or criticisms of the "Slow Yes" women. I have problems with
the "Slow No" women (what I refer to in my books as "Timewasters"). I believe
most women know if they are attracted to a guy and interested in having sex with a
guy within the first ten-to-fifteen minutes of their first conversation with him.

For clarification, my book Mode One does not encourage men to just walk up to
women and immediately say, "Hey ... you want to go back to my place and f**k?" I
do not totally discourage that approach ... but neither do I specifically encourage
that type of approach either.

As you probably already know, I am not into engaging in a high degree of

"entertaining small talk" and "trivial chit chat" with women. I believe in getting-to-
the-point when it comes to my desires, interests, and intentions in regard to sharing
a woman's company. Particularly if my interest is geared more toward short-term
non-monogamous casual sex rather than a potentially long-term monogamous
relationship. Why does a man need to "get to know you" in order to have casual
sex? I have heard a number of women say that, or suggest that, and I do not get it
at all.

As I told you privately, I think it would be very misleading and manipulative for a
woman to agree to go home with a guy if she has no interest in having sex with
him. That is a recipe for an uncomfortable situation for both the woman and the
man. If you are interested, just say something along the lines of, "I will admit ... I
am very attracted to you, and I probably would not mind having sex with you
tonight ... but can I ask you some questions to find out more about you before I
give you a definite decision?" That type of response is honest, straightforward, and
non-manipulative.

So for you, if a man is "really, really hot," you do not mind him exhibiting Mode
One Behavior (i.e., upfront and straightforward with his sexual desires and
interests), but if he is 'average' looking, you would prefer that he exhibit Mode
Two Behavior (i.e., being more cautious, conventional, and 'beat-around-the-
bush' in expressing his sexual intentions)?? Am I reading that right? I need you to
further explain and elaborate on that point.

Email feedback in response to my article, "Why men are attracted to porn and
women love 'chick flicks'"

From Heather F.:

"Alan, you need to quit generalizing men and women!! I like reading a lot of what
you write, but I totally disagree with your assumption that women do not like
watching porn, and instead love watching 'chick flicks.' My girlfriends and I HATE
most chick flicks. Seriously! We talk about how corny and stupid they are all the
time. I am a Junior in college and about to be a Senior. Guess what me and many
of my girlfriends do on many nights when we are together (with no men around)?
We watch porn!! Not to sound like a total nymphomaniac, but I love watching
porn. All of my girlfriends do too. We probably watch just as much porn as the
guys on campus do. One reason I could not wait to get out of my parents' house is
so I could watch porn more regularly. I have even read articles on the Internet that
have said that now and days, women watch just as much porn as you men do. My
hand is raised in the air!! Take care Alan and keep being you!!"

Alan's response: Heather, there are always "exceptions.'' I would categorize you
and your girlfriends' love for porn over 'chick flicks' as being representative of the
"exception" more so than the norm, although I will admit ... in ten or twenty years,
you probably will be the "norm."

You are right about one thing. Since the advent of the Internet, research has shown
that more and more women watch porn videos than they did before access to the
Internet was available. In my lifetime, I have probably interacted with at least nine
or ten women who had a larger collection of porn DVDs than I did (I actually only
own the same three or four DVDs that I have owned for years).

Actually, I have female friends on Facebook who send me porn clips all of the
time (not joking). They always want to know If I would give the clip "one star,"
"two stars," "five stars," and so on. I am very nitpicky with porn. I think 80-90% of
porn today is garbage. I only give five stars to about maybe ten percent of the
videos or video clips that I have seen. I actually warn guys against watching "too
much" porn. It can have a negative effect on your love life and sex life. Men (and
women) should only watch porn occasionally, if at all. That is only my opinion
though.

On that note, I will conclude this edition of "Feedback from Readers." As always,
keep the feedback coming .... even if what you have to say is a harsh criticism of
my content and opinions.

Look! Just that quick, more feedback from a male reader. His question? "What
college campus does Heather attend? I need to be on THAT campus!"

That is for me to know, and you to .... well, you the rest.
Nothing 'inappropriate'
about discussing sexual
desires in a first
conversation
n a weekly basis, I receive a number of e-mail messages from male and female
readers of my books and my Examiner.com articles, as well as from listeners
of my talk radio show.

One message I received a couple of days ago was from a young man who resides in
New York City. I will call him "Milford." Milford wrote me and asked,

Hey Alan! Man, I love your books so much! I have learned so much
from them. I also enjoy listening to your talk radio show. I have so
many questions for you, but I will start with just this one issue that
has been bugging me. I have read some of your stories about
approaching women, and in many of your stories it seems like you
talk to women about sexual related stuff very, very quickly. I simply
cannot bring myself to do this. I was taught as a teenager that
bringing up sex in your first conversation with a woman will be
looked at as rude, disrespectful, and tacky. How did you overcome
this attitude? Do I just throw social norms to the wind? Should I
ignore the entire notion of 'first-date conversation etiquette?' I need
help Alan. I am really struggling with this issue.

Milford from Brooklyn

(Note: I already responded to 'Milford' privately, but I informed him that I was going to
use his question in one of my articles; I promised him that I would not use his real
name)

Trust me Milford . . . I receive variations of this question ALL THE TIME. No less
than nine out of every ten men who I take on as a new client ask me this question.

Back in the mid-to-late 1990s, I once interviewed with NBC Television

Studios in Burbank, California for a position as an Associate Programming
Executive. Even if you do not know much about the television industry, what do you
think most of the conversation during the interview centered on? You guessed
it:television programming. The person interviewing me wanted to know what my
favorite and least favorite television programs were, and why I liked the shows I
liked, and why I disliked the shows I did not like.
Around this same time, I also interviewed with Universal Motion Picture
Studios for a similar position entitled "Associate Feature-Film Development
Executive" (interesting enough, now both of the studios I interviewed with are now
referred to as NBC-Universal Studios). I am not going to make you guess again what
the person interviewed me primarily wanted to talk about. Why of course, this person
wanted to discuss feature-films, and more specifically, the woman wanted to know
what my top fifteen favorite movies of all-time were, and what my specific reasons for
favoring those films were. Then she asked me about a few films that I totally did not
like, and specifically why I did not like those films.

(Unfortunately for me, I did not get hired for either position ... but that is another story
altogether)

If you visited a bank in search of a home loan or car loan, what are you going to
spend the vast majority of your time talking about with the loan officer? Your
finances and your debt. If you visited a health and fitness gym in search of a
personal trainer to hire, what are you going to spend the vast majority of your time
conversing with one or more of the personal trainer candidates about? Your
exercise habits and eating habits, and how you can improve on both. I can go
on and on and on with a number of different examples, but I would assume that you
get where I am going with this.

If you have a strong desire to become sexually intimate with a woman, why would
you spend an hour or more talking about your favorite movies and her favorite
movies? Are you going to hire her as a personal movie critic?

If the number one thing that is on your mind is exchanging pleasurable orgasms with
a woman, why would you spend an hour or longer conversing with a woman about
the fact that she converted to vegetarianism ten years ago? Are you looking to stop
eating steak and chicken wings within the next thirty days and become a raw food
vegan? Do you want this woman to become your personal nutritionist?

When I first make the acquaintance of a woman who I find physically attractive and
sexually appealing, I usually express my sexual desires, interests, and intentions to
her within roughly the first five minutes of the conversation. Particularly if my interest
leans more so toward short term non-monogamous 'casual' sex rather than a long
term, emotionally profound, monogamous sexual relationship (if my interests are
geared more toward the latter, I actually will take my time in thoroughly getting to
know every facet of the woman's personality, character, and integrity).

If you have listened to past episodes of my talk radio podcast program, Upfront &
Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie, you will find that at least a handful of my
female guests over the past six years have agreed with my "skip-the-trivial-small-
talk-and-get-right-to-the-point" style of interpersonal communication, which as you
already know, I refer to as simply The Mode One Approach.

One such guest in particular was Dr. Veronica Anderson. I interviewed her in
September of 2011 on my show. Matter of fact, not only did Dr. Anderson endorse
the idea of talking about sex fairly quickly with a member of the opposite sex, she
went a step or two further and even condoned the idea of women actually having
sex within a matter of days after they meet a man.

Dr. Anderson's attitude was (paraphrasing some of the comments she expressed
during my interview with her a bit), "Why spend weeks, months, or years developing
and solidifying this great friendship with a man ... and this deep emotional bond with
a man ... only to find out later that you two have very little if any sexual chemistry or
compatibility? I am not suggesting that every single woman in society just go out and
exhibit behavior that is outrageously promiscuous or sexually irresponsible and
reckless, but no woman should want to invest a significant chunk of their adult life
'getting to know' a man only to end up disappointed and frustrated in bed at some
point down the line. Long lasting relationships are about being friends AND lovers,
and if the 'lover' component is not satisfying, the relationship simply will not work in
the long run."

I echo just about all of Dr. Anderson's sentiments. In the same way Dr. Anderson
feels that women should not waste a significant amount of their time "getting to know
a man" in a purely platonic manner, I feel the same way about men avoiding the
same trap and pitfalls. Why should I spend say, two weeks or two months "getting to
know a woman" ... all the while, avoiding any type of 'sex talk' ... only to find out
weeks or months later that this woman is a major prude who shares none of my
same sexual interests or desires? That would be a complete waste of my valuable
time.

Surveys and other formal and informal research suggest that the average woman
knows within the first five-to-fifteen minutes of her first conversation with a man
whether or not she is going to potentially have sex with him. She may not have
decided on the specific day, date, time, and place ... but deep-down, a woman
knows no later than approximately the fifteen minute mark if she is going to allow you
to exchange orgasms with her at some point.

For me, the terms "rude," "socially inappropriate," "disrespectful," and others similar
terms that women throw around in response to an unexpected erotically explicit
conversation are very, very subjective in their use and definition. One woman's "turn-
off" is another woman's "turn-on."

And based on my experiences, and the experiences of many of my clients, the

women who usually have the most dramatic and theatrical 'adverse reactions' are
usually the same women who will eventually turn around and have sex with you at
some point in the near or distant future.

As you know already from reading my books, I refer to these women as

"Pretenders" or "Fake Prudes." I discuss the disingenuous and manipulative ways of
Pretender types in a YouTube video of mine entitled, "Women will try to 'bait' you"
(an excerpt from when I spoke in London in November 2010 at The Direct Dating
Summit Weekend Conference for Men). Pretender types are always going to
initially feign as if you are "offending" them and "turning them off" by talking about
sex too quickly and too explicitly because it makes them feel better about the social
programming and cultural conditioning they have absorbed from their parents,
church members, and other more 'prudish' factions in society.
I find that over ninety percent of the women who are truly not interested in having
sex with you at any point in the future will usually let you know that in a cool, calm,
collected, and straightforward manner. No theatrics or prudish facades will ever
come into play in their rejection of your sexual advances.

So, I say . . . if you feel like talking about sex with a woman during your first
conversation with her, by all means do so. I mean, do you really want to date or have
sex with a woman who has a very dramatic and prudish reaction to your provocative
style of conversation and interpersonal communication? I mean, really? Personally, I
have no desire to lie in bed with a woman who frowns at the mere mention of
anything erotically kinky.

So, that is my advice to you Milford. Quit trying to adhere to the social norms and
invalid rules of first-conversation 'etiquette' that many sexually duplicitous, self-
righteous, and highly manipulative women attempt to promote and perpetuate. You
have to be the man who you really want to be with women. Anything else is a
'social facade.' It's B.S. The type of relationship and companionship you are looking
for is what should determine the subject matter in all of your conversations with
women.

If you are looking for a woman to cook for you, talk about food. If you are looking for
a woman to help keep your house or apartment clean, talk about the joys of
housekeeping. If you are looking for a woman to help you raise children, talk about
the challenges of parenting.

And if you are looking for a woman to experience enjoyable and satisfying sex with in
the near future ...

... be Mode One. Always.

Good luck my friend.

P.S. Two mainstream films that have scenes that involve men talking about sex in
their first conversation with a woman would be Must Love Dogs (John
Cusack,Diane Lane) and Vicky, Cristina, Barcelona (Javier Bardem, Penlope
Cruz). One more, even though this example is a bit over-the-top comically, would
be the opening scene from Four Christmases with Reese
Witherspoon and Vince Vaughn. Check those out.

Now let me go back to listening to some old school rap by the legendary Salt-N-
Pepa . . .
Blunt truth tellers are
slowly becoming a rare
species in modern day
society
Quick question for you . . .

Have you ever had a man or a woman who you were under the impression was a
"close friend" of yours express a harsh criticism or mean insult about you to a mutual
friend, but this same person never shared that same harsh criticism or insult directly
to your face?

Think about it for a few moments.

If this has happened at least once in your life, how did that make you feel? How did it
make you feel both about that person, and about your so-called friendship with this
person?

I have experienced this scenario at least a half-dozen times in my life. Ultimately, my

"friendship" with these people came to an abrupt end.

Actors Morris Chestnut and Taye Diggs starred in an entertaining romantic comedy
entitled, The Best Man. I enjoyed this film. Aside from the performances of the
talented cast, this film touched on a sensitive area among male friends. I present the
main plot point of the story as a question (primarily for my male readers): How would
you feel if you found out that one of your closest male friends - the one you consider
your "ace homey" - had sex with your current girlfriend, fiance, or wife, but this
same "friend" never shared that information with you directly?

When is it appropriate to hide, deny or suppress honesty? Should you ever "hold
back" from being honest with people under the guise of being "polite?" Are there truly
long term benefits to expressing pleasant lies rather than real, raw, harsh truth?

I had the most interesting interview recently with Dr. Brad Blanton, author of the
controversial book, Radical Honesty: How to Transform Your Life by Telling the
Truth. Dr. Blanton believes that being honest with others on a consistent basis is
simply "not normal." Not anymore. He asserts that society has transitioned to a point
where dishonest and disingenuous behavior is more 'socially acceptable' than blunt
truth.

You know what amuses me among religious folk, and particularly Christians? Many
of them have this idea that their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was this meek, super-
polite, non-confrontational gentleman who was loved by everyone and embraced
with open arms by every man and woman who he encountered.

I would boldly speculate that if Jesus Christ was walking the earth as a human being
right now, in the 21st Century, most factions in society would urge to have him
locked up in a mental hospital. If you do very thorough research on the life and times
of Jesus Christ, Jesus was arguably the boldest truth teller to ever walk the face
of the earth. His critics and enemies hated his truth-telling ways so much, that they
wanted him dead. And eventually, they crucified him.

Remember Jim Carrey's comical character in the 1997 comedy, Liar Liar? If you
missed this movie by chance, Carrey's character finds himself in a position where he
becomes physically incapable of lying to people. He literally is forced to tell the truth
to people whenever he opens his mouth.

How would you function in life if you were in the same predicament? Think about that
for a few moments.

If there is one aspect of my personality that has changed drastically over the last 20,
25, or 30 years, it is that I now have an extremely low tolerance to maintain a
conversation with people who come across as blatantly phony and insincere in their
nature and demeanor. I literally cannot have more than a two or three minute
conversation with these types.

Many of us 'hide' truth from others for fear that it may bruise their ego, hurt their
feelings, or create a sense of tension and animosity in our friendship with these
people. The reality is the truth always rises to the surface at some point. If you
avoid telling the truth to your best friend in January for fear of hurting their feelings,
how do you think they are going to feel in October, November, or December when
the truth finally reveals itself?

I had a conversation with a woman not too long ago, and she lightheartedly bragged
about how she regularly faked orgasms with her last boyfriend, and told him that he
was the best lover she had ever had, when in reality, she thought he was less-than-
average in bed the vast majority of the time. She expected me to laugh in response
to this information, but instead, I harshly admonished her. I asked her, "Why would
you tell your boyfriend lie after lie after lie about your perception of his sexual
prowess, or lack thereof?" She said, "I did not want to hurt his feelings."

Really now.

How did their relationship end? Her ex-boyfriend found out that she was having sex
with one of his good friends. Did this woman naively believe that her ex-boyfriend
would never find out about her cheating ways? And was she foolish enough to
believe that if he did find out, he would not be emotionally and egotistically
devastated? She thought the truth could remain hidden forever, and boy oh boy was
she wrong.

Here are some of my "truths":

- Over the years, I have many times offered a "fake laugh" in response to many of
the jokes and humorous stories told to me by friends and casual acquaintances,
when in actuality, I categorized these lame jokes and attempts at humor as
ridiculously corny and goofy. Each time, later on, I felt guilty for "pretending" to find
these people funny ... when in reality, I found them anything but.

- I have "pretended" to be content with a "purely platonic" relationship with many

women in my adult life, when I knew deep down that I either wanted to be in a long-
term romantic relationship with them, or at minimum, I wanted to enjoy a few weeks
or a few months of casual sex with them. This disingenuous behavior on my part
(which was primarily exhibited by me in my younger years) is what ultimately
motivated me to write my first book, Mode One: Let the Women Know What
You're REALLY Thinking

- Similar to above, I have engaged in many conversations with women that lasted
thirty minutes, forty-five minutes, or an hour or longer, and I really did not care about
80-90% of the stuff they talked about. All I was thinking in my mind was, "when can I
see this woman hopping up and down on top of me naked." But in the spirit of
wanting to be perceived as "well-mannered," "classy," and "respectful toward
women," I bit my tongue. And each time, afterwards, I felt like a coward and a phony.
Again, it was these instances that ultimately inspired me to write Mode One as well
as all of my subsequent books.

- At least one-fourth to one-third of the house parties and informal get-togethers that
I have been invited to by friends, friends of friends, and other casual acquaintances
over the years, I ended up feeling bored out of my damn mind. But when asked, "Are
you enjoying yourself Alan," I would display a disingenuous smile and nod my head
in the affirmative. Each time, afterwards, I felt guilty and cowardly for being such a
blatant phony and pretending to be having the time of my life.

- Probably 95% or more, I only talk about close friends and acquaintances "behind
their back" after I have first shared my criticisms and problems with their behavior to
their face directly. But in that roughly 1% - 5% of the time that I failed to have the
cojones to be blunt with them about the aspects of their personality and behavior that
bothered me deeply, I later found myself questioning my own sense of character and
integrity. I viewed myself as the worst sort of friend that person could have ever
asked for. One who "smiled in their face, but dogged them out behind their back."
Way to go Alan.

- I love chicken wings . . . everyone in the world knows that by now . . . but in one of
my last 'serious' relationships with a woman, this particular ex-girlfriend went out of
her way to cook me some chicken wings, and sadly, they were horrible. I mean,
absolutely awful. When she looked me in my eyes, and asked me, "Well? How are
they?" I gave my best Academy Award winning performance and replied, "Baby ...
these wangs are great!" What a blatant liar. I was THAT CLOSE to telling her the
bold, blunt, honest truth about her dreadful chicken wings, but I just did not have the
heart to "hurt her feelings" after seeing her put in so much effort to please me and
satisfy my stomach.
- There are many obese men and women walking around right now thinking that they
look handsome and beautiful because most of their close friends and family
members say, "Don't worry about your weight! You look FINE!! Just the way you
are!!" You know good and well that what you said to them is a damn lie. No they do
not "fine just the way they are." You know in your heart that they would look much
more attractive if they lost maybe fifty, seventy-five, or a hundred or more pounds.
You know it and everyone who knows them knows it. The truth is, you do not have
the heart to tell them this directly for fear of hurting their feelings.

We all say we want the "truth" from others . . . but do we REALLY?

Many women have said to me, "I hate men who lie and play games," but many of
those same women frown when a man approaches them and bluntly expresses to
them in one way or another that the only reason they want to connect with these
women is for sexual pleasure and satisfaction. If a man is blunt and upfront about his
sexual desires, interests, and intentions (which is the essence of 'Mode One
Behavior'), the women will often express criticisms such as,"What a jerk! What an a**
hole! You can tell that man never had any home training by his mother or father. He
is so shallow!! He needs some lessons in class and respect toward women!!" No he
does not. He simply needs to take a course called "How to be pleasantly phony with
women and still get laid 101."

Truth? The only women who most men will not hesitate to be upfront and
straightforward with their desire for sex, and nothing more than sex, are street
prostitutes, professional Call Girls, and high-priced Erotic Escorts, and that is only
because these women charge these verbal wimps a "fee" for the opportunity to be
blunt with them without experiencing a negative reaction to their forthright sexual
advances.

Bluntly honest = You might be perceived as being "rude," "disrespectful," and lacking
social intelligence and manners.

Pleasantly phony = everyone will love and adore you, and says nice things about you
(but then they will go ahead and talk about you behind your back).

The choice is yours. My prediction is that a large percentage of you will vacillate
between the two extremes.

You will choose to be blunt and honest when you see it as being conducive to your
needs, or in those moments when you are so angry and frustrated that you just really
do not give a damn what other people might think of what you said and how you said
it.

You will choose to be dishonest and pleasantly phony when you see some personal
benefit in doing so, or at minimum, to avoid bruising the ego or feelings of someone
you genuinely care about.

The problem with the latter option is that at some point . . . whether it is days from
now, weeks from now, months from now, years from now, or even decades from
now . . . the truth will indeed rise to the surface. You will never, ever maintain a
romantic relationship or platonic friendship indefinitely if you have a profound
aversion to blunt honesty. If you are a dishonest and phony person, just about all of
your relationships and friendships will be short-lived, manipulative, and superficial.

When Rae Dawn Chong recently criticized media mogul Oprah Winfrey, was she
expressing opinions and criticisms that she deemed as truthful and valid? Or was
she instead being vindictive and spiteful? When fellow BlogTalkRadio host and
political pundit Tavis Smiley criticized President Barack Obama, did he have the
right to express his personal opinions, or was he being petty and divisive in an
unnecessary manner?

If telling the truth is hard for you, just ask yourself, "What would Jesus do?"

My best speculation is that Jesus would you look you dead in the eye and say, "I
love you because you are a child of God. I forgive you for all of the sins you have
committed up to this point. But ... being honest ... these chicken wings you prepared
for me have absolutely no taste or spice to them .... and yes, you look fat in that
dress ... and this party you invited me to is about as exciting as watching paint dry.
Nothing personal. I still love you as a human being and child of God. By the way, I
am the Son of God. Take care and be Blessed."

Men and women would immediately start talking about Jesus behind his back. "Can
you believe how arrogant he is?!? Did you hear him say, 'I am the Son of God'?
Yeah, right. He is so full of himself!! I will never invite him to a party EVER again.
Believe that."

I am still a work in progress. If my life ends up being graded on a "pass" or "fail"

basis, I still have some time. Until I am buried six feet under, the final grade has not
yet been posted.

That is my truth . . . the whole truth . . . and nothing but the truth as I know it.

So help me God. Or Jesus, or anyone else who may happen to know the truthful
thoughts of my mind and the most honest desires of my heart.
Frustrated nice guys need to overcome
their addiction to 'empty compliments'
I recently completed another speaking engagement, this one in New York City, as
part of The Direct Dating Summit Weekend Conference for Men. The Direct Dating
Summit (DDS) events have been held in Berlin (Germany), Las Vegas, London
(England), and Melbourne (Australia) in addition to New York beginning with
November 2010.

One of the few women who attended expressed that she was genuinely surprised by
many of the men who attended. She said, "Alan, with all due respect ... I thought this
event would be full of 'loser' type guys. You know, guys who are unattractive, obese,
super-geeky and shy, etc. But there are a lot of handsome, intelligent, well spoken
men here. Pretty 'normal' type guys. Why do you think so many of the guys who
attend these Direct Dating Summit events need help and guidance with women?
What is their main weakness with women?"

I told this woman that if I had to identify at least one "common denominator" among
the men who attend the DDS events, it is usually that they suffer from the "He's too
nice" syndrome in their interactions with women. I have always said that my number
one target demographic for my books, my talk radio show, and my speaking
presentations is the "frustrated nice guy." The guy who, up to this point, bought into
the belief that being an exceptionally polite and "well-mannered gentleman" would be
his primary key to romantic and sexual success with women, but found that over the
years, that belief has caused him nothing but romantic and sexual frustration.

In general, there are a lot of invalid beliefs and attitudes that the 'frustrated nice guy'
types need to overcome, but if I had to pick out one in particular, it is their "addiction"
to "empty compliments."

What is an "empty compliment?"

If I was a restaurant owner, and you visited my restaurant ... purchased a meal ...
and then at the conclusion of your meal, you told me, "That meal was fantastic! I am
definitely going to eat here again, and I am going to recommend this restaurant to all
of my friends and acquaintances!" this would be representative of a very meaningful
compliment based on a mutually rewarding experience.

On the other hand, if you were an acquaintance of mine, and you said to me, "I
heard you opened a new restaurant! I bet the food is good. Just from what I know
about you, I bet you hired a staff of great chefs and cooks. I wish you the best!" this
compliment would not mean much to me. Why not?

Not once did you express a desire to patronize my restaurant and taste the food for
yourself. Not once did you mention that you would tell your friends, relatives, and
other acquaintances about my restaurant. In this example, you were just being
flattering for the sake of being 'nice.' That is what I categorize as an "empty
compliment."
I remember I was at a party once, and a group of women asked me what was the
best compliment I had ever received from a woman I had just met. I said, "A
blowjob." Some of the women blushed and giggled, while others responded with
stunned silence. One woman said, "That is not a compliment! That is a sexual act on
her part! How is that representative of a compliment?" Action-oriented compliments,
in my opinion, are the most meaningful compliments of all.

You take me being a book author. The most meaningful compliments for me are
from those men and women who have actually purchased one or more of my books,
and thoroughly read them. If you approach me at a social event, and say, "I heard
you were a writer! Well good for you! Congratulations on your books. I bet they are
good!" that compliment would not mean much to me at all. Not once did you express
an interest in purchasing one of my books or reading one of my books. Again, similar
to my restaurant example, you were just being "nice."

Speaking of being 'nice,' that is the problem with 'nice guy' types. They love having
women express comments and compliments such as, "You are such a great guy!
You are such a wonderful person! You are such a sweetheart!! You are so polite and
considerate!! You are such an empathetic, caring person!!" Etc., etc., etc. In the long
run, none of those 'compliments' mean anything to a man if he is always at home
masturbating to internet pornography each and every weekend for six months
straight (and this is not an exaggeration for some men I have met ... trust me).

One of my first epiphanies that led me to write my first book, Mode One: Let the
Women Know What You're REALLY Thinking, was when I realized that I rarely if
ever was involved in a romantic or sexual relationship with women who had nothing
but compliments of my behavior. To this day, I feel uncomfortable when women have
nothing but "good things" to say about me. At minimum, it usually means that they do
not really know me that well ... and at maximum, it usually means that there is a
99.99% chance that this woman and I are never going to have sex.

Over the course of my life, I would estimate that no less than twenty-four out of every
twenty-five women I have had sex with had at least one major or minor criticism of
some aspect of my behavior and personality.

Here are at least five examples of criticisms I have received from women over the
years just minutes, hours, days or weeks before I had sex with these same women:

1) "Alan ... you are too blunt about your sexual thoughts and desires with women you
have just met. I mean, you barely even know me!"

Comment: I cannot tell you how many women expressed a variation of this criticism
to me, only to later on engage in sexual relations with me. So much for "talking about
sex too quick."

2) "Alan, sometimes you come across as very spoiled and egotistical. You always
want women to behave in a manner that is to your pleasing. The world does not
revolve around Alan Roger Currie."
Comment: Most women who express criticisms like this are usually women who want
me to exhibit behavior that is to THEIR liking. Hypocrites. Needless to say, I have
had sex with a number of women just days or weeks after they expressed such a
criticism.

3) "Alan, your language is way too X-rated and explicit for my tastes. I would border
on saying that your language is crass and disrespectful to women. At least women of
class."

Comment: Have you ever heard of "talking clean" to a woman to get her sexually
aroused? Me neither. Conversely, everyone has heard of the concept of "talking
dirty" to a woman. The reality is words that are explicit, profane, X-rated, and taboo
are the very words that usually leave women hot and bothered. Once again, I have
had sex with a number of women who criticized me for my preference for "adults
only" language.

4) "Alan, you are not very romantic at all. I mean, you have never given me
flowers ... you have never given me a Valentine's Day card ... and you rarely treat
me to a nice expensive dinner. Then, you just expect me to open up my legs for you
whenever you call. I am not your beck-and-call booty call girl!"

Comment: I let all women know: unless you are my long-term 'serious' girlfriend, you
are not going to receive the 'girlfriend' treatment. I am very real and upfront with
women about this (read my article entitled If you treat all women as if they are
'special' to you, then none of them are). I do not like to 'confuse' things with
women who are nothing more to me than 'casual' sex partners. Despite receiving this
type of criticism from many women, I still ended up having sex with the vast majority
of them.

5) "Alan, you don't flatter me like most of the other guys I know and you never
express a desire to spend as much time hanging out with me as the other men I
know do. You treat me like I am just 'average' or unappealing or something. I love to
be complimented and I love to be given attention. All women do. But it seems like
you purposely go out of your way to avoid complimenting me or socializing with me.
Sometimes, I hate you!"

Comment: Just like the other examples, I have heard this one quite a bit. The kicker?
Most of those "other guys" who are flattering those women are not having sex with
them, but I am. That is how it is with most men and women. The guys that "fawn"
over women rarely end up having sex with them while the guys who are 'stingy' with
their flattery are the ones exchanging orgasms.

Now, let me give a few examples of comments I have received from women who I
have never, ever had sex with:

1) "Alan ... you are a total sweetheart!! I cannot believe you bought me a gift for my
birthday! I cannot even remember when your birthday is!"

Comment: A real comment from a real woman (that I wanted to date) when I was in
my twenties. I said to myself, "never again."
2) "Alan, you are such a sweetheart!! You have to be arguably the nicest guy in the
whole world!"

Comment: I literally do not think I have ever had sex with a woman who made a
comment like that to me.

3) "Alan, you know why I love spending time with you so much? Because you always
give my ego and self-esteem a boost!! Every woman needs a man like you in their
life!"

Comment: See my comment for example #2.

4) "Alan, you are like a 'big brother' to me. I have all sisters, but you are like the
brother I never had..."

Translation: "Thinking about having sex with you is like thinking about having sex
with a male relative. Ewwwwww. Incestuous." You never, never, ever, ever want a
woman who you are romantically and/or sexually attracted to looking at you as some
sort of "play brother." Ever.

5) "Alan ... I love having a guy in my life who I can share my problems,
disappointments, and frustrations regarding the other men who are 'jerks' in my life.
You are so sweet. I love having you as a listening ear."

Comment: I just told all of the men in Manhattan: NEVER allow yourself to become a
woman's "empathetic listening ear." EVER. Unless it is a woman who you have
absolutely no romantic or sexual attraction toward. Otherwise, you will never end up
having sex with that woman. EVER. I made that mistake a lot in my late teens and
twenties. Even a handful of times in my thirties and forties. Trust me ... you will end
up having a permanent residence in a woman's "friend zone" if you do.

Bottom line, never give women compliments "just because." Most of the compliments
I give women I am attracted to are "action-oriented" compliments. For example,
instead of saying, "You have nice lips," say, "I cannot wait to kiss you so I can feel
those nice lips of yours pressed against my lips." See the difference? The latter
compliment is centered on a desired action you want to happen in the near future.

It makes me cringe when I see men walk up to women at bars, restaurants,

nightclubs, or simply on the streets, and say things like, "You are so beautiful!" "You
are so gorgeous!" "You are incredibly sexy!!" and then just walk away. I have been
guilty of that maybe 1% or 2% of the time in my entire adult life.

If you are a man reading this, and you have a strong desire to overcome your "He's
too nice" tag with women? Step #1: Stop complimenting women so much.Step
#2: Stop getting excited over "empty compliments" from women.

The only compliment you should strive for from a woman is, "You feel so damn good
inside of me."

Nothing "empty" about that compliment.

Examining the men who allow their
female companions to enjoy sex with
other men
Men, usually more so than women, frequently tend to be stereotyped as "egotistical,"
"macho," and "territorial," particularly when it comes to their relationships with their
female sex partners (i.e., wife, fiance, long-term girlfriend, etc.). Given that valid or
not-so-valid generalization, it would come as no surprise that any man who would
openly admit to allowing his female companion to enjoy sexual relations with other
men would probably be harshly criticized and ridiculed by many of his male friends
and acquaintances.

Not too long ago, I exchanged some Facebook messages with a married man who
was leaning toward "opening up" his relationship with his wife. He wanted to engage
in what is known as "swinging" and "couple-swapping," and he wanted to know what
my thoughts and opinions were on this idea. He indicated to me that he had already
shared his desired objective with a few close male friends of his, and all of them
went on to call him "crazy" and "foolish" for even entertaining the idea.

I am no official "expert" in this area, but over the years, I have gathered enough
informal information to maintain a lengthy discussion about the subject, and throw in
my own thoughts and opinions on the subject.

What does it say about a man who would knowingly allow his significant other to
have sex with other men? Is this representative of low self-esteem on his part?
Sexual insecurities? Sexual dysfunction? A desire to add "kinky spice" into his
relationship? Other?

While in college, I enrolled in a "Human Sexuality 101" course. One thing I learned
from that class is that there is no such thing as "normal" sex. The type of sex that
many of us may consider to be "normal" may be perceived by someone else as
"kinky," or vice versa. For example, many men and women consider one-on-one
monogamous sex to be 'normal,' but they consider any type of group sex (e.g.,
threesomes, foursomes, orgies, et al) to be 'kinky.' What if you engaged in
threesomes and foursomes on a weekly and monthly basis? If group sex was
frequent and habitual for a man or woman, it would then become a part of that
person's 'normal' routine.

I told this Facebook acquaintance to think about everything involved with his desired
objective, and if he found that he was not going to experience any profound feelings
of guilt or regret days later, weeks later, months later, or years later, to go ahead and
proceed with his desire to "open up" his relationship with his wife, as long as they
both agreed that it was a mutually beneficial objective.

I remember while working a temporary employment assignment back in late 1999 in

Beverly Hills, one of my fellow temps told me about a married couple who were
friends of hers. She said that this married couple was headed toward divorce, but
just weeks before the official divorce proceedings began, they got invited to a
'swinging party.' The first party they attended, they did not participate ... they just
watched. The second party, they participated. A few weeks later, according to the
woman I was working with, her married friends called off their divorce. At the time of
that particular conversation, she said that this couple was the happiest they had ever
been.

I've heard "success" stories related to swinging and couple-swapping, and I have
also heard 'horror' stories. Just like I would say marriage is not for everyone, I would
definitely say that various forms of polyamorous sex are not for everyone either.

From what I have observed, there are basically four types of men who tend to
knowingly allow their long-term female partners to enjoy sexual relations with
multiple men. Here is a breakdown of each one:

1) The "marriage of convenience" partner

Comment / Description: Surely, you have heard of men and women who are involved
in "sexless" marriages. I had a female acquaintance who once told me of a situation
where her husband had frequently cheated on her, but each time, she forgave him.
Guess what happened when he discovered that she had cheated on him with a
former lover? He refused to have sex with her any longer. Instead of filing for
divorce, they mutually decided to remain married (mainly, in 'name' only) for the sake
of their children and finances, but they stopped having sex altogether. As of right
now, she has sex with whomever she wants to, and he has sex with a number of
different women who interest him.

Many politicians, Entertainment Industry celebrities, and professional athletes,

among others in society, have been known to maintain these types of relationships.
Personally, I am not in favor of any man or woman remaining married if there is no
romantic or sexual intimacy involved. Children or no children. That just does not
make sense to me. But ... to each their own.

2) The "swinger" and/or "couple-swapper"

Comment / Description: Unlike the "marriage of convenience" partner, a man who is

involved in 'swinging' and 'couple-swapping' is very enthusiastic about their female
partner engaging in sex with men other than themselves. These are usually men
who have exceptionally high "voyeuristic" and "exhibitionistic" tendencies (note: for
those readers who may not be familiar with those terms, a 'voyeur' is someone who
becomes sexually aroused while watching someone go from being clothed to fully
nude, or even more so, they become incredibly aroused by watching someone
engage in sex; An 'exhibitionist' is someone who becomes sexually aroused when
they know they are being watched by someone when they are nude or partially nude,
or when they are being watched while having sex).

Also unlike the "marriage of convenience" partners, who have no desire to know the
names of their female companion's male sex partners or know any other information
about them, a man who is into swinging and couple swapping usually becomes
acquainted with their female companion's other male sex partners. Just in the last
few years, I met a woman who was part of what she referred to as a "family." In her
'family' were four men and seven women.

Based on her description, it was as if they were both "polyamorous" and

"monogamous" at the same time. For example, the men were not allowed to have
sex with any women other than the seven women in their "family"; similarly, the
seven women were strictly prohibited from having sex with any other men other than
the men in this polyamorous 'family.' They could invite a new male 'family' member
or new female 'family' member into the group if everyone agreed with it. Dr.
Phil once reported on an episode of his television talk show that over ten million men
and women in the United States engage in some form of swinging and couple-
swapping. Some of the most listened to episodes of my talk radio podcast
program, Upfront & Straightforward, have been the episodes that centered on
swinging and polyamorous dating.

3) The "voyeur"

Comment / Description: One stereotype that has been maintained in society for a
while is that men are typically more voyeuristic than women are, and women are
typically more exhibitionistic than men are. Of course, there are exceptions to both of
those loose generalizations, but there are a lot of men and women who exhibit
behavior that validates those stereotypes.

As mentioned above in the description of 'swingers,' most men who are swingers
usually possess both "voyeuristic" tendencies and "exhibitionistic" tendencies. Well,
there are some men who exclusively get off on watching their female partners have
sex with other men, but they do not really enjoy having sex with women other than
their partner.

One low-budget film that highlights a man in this category was a 1992 film
entitled, Animal Instincts with the former 1984 Gold Medal Olympian Mitch
Gaylord, former soft-porn actress Shannon Whirry, and B-list actor Maxwell
Caulfield. Caulfield's character was supposedly based on a real life story of a
Florida cop who was married to a woman who was an insatiable nymphomaniac. At
first, the cop was angry that his wife was engaging in a number of extramarital
affairs, but later, he found that he became aroused watching his wife have sex with
other men. Quite a few mainstream feature-films and television dramas have often
included a male character with this particular fetish.

4) The "cuckold"

Comment / Description: If you ask ten people familiar with this term what their
definition is, you are probably going to receive at least four or five different variations.
Originally, the term 'cuckold' was used to describe a scenario where a man's wife
was cheating on him with many men in her city or neighborhood, and the husband
was the last to find out about it. Another definition of a 'cuckold' was when a man's
wife cheated on him, and got pregnant by the man she was cheating with, and then
the husband proceeded to raise the son or daughter as if it were his own.
The more contemporary description and definition of a 'cuckold' is similar to a
'voyeur,' with a few differences in behavior. One difference between a conventional
'voyeur' and a 'cuckold' is that the latter has a specific preference of the type of men
he wants to watch having sex with his wife, fiance, or long-term girlfriend. Usually,
the cuckold only wants to see his significant other have sex with men who he
perceives as more handsome than himself, more erotically dominant than himself,
and/or more well endowed than himself. Taking it a step further, this man will usually
behave in a very 'submissive' manner toward both his female companion and her
chosen sex partners. Many times, the female companion and her sex partner will talk
to the husband / fianc / boyfriend in a very dominating and humiliating tone of voice,
which is what the cuckold strongly desires and gets off on.

Some Caucasian men who are cuckolds have a strong, exclusive preference for
African-American men to have sex with their female partners. The Black male sex
partner is referred to as a "Black Bull" (I just learned this terminology within the last
four or five years), and the Black Bull is usually very fit and muscular, very erotically
dominant, and well endowed. I once met a (Black) male porn star who told me that
this was how he made most of his 'cash-on-the-side' in addition to the income he
earned as an adult film actor. He told me that middle-aged to older Caucasian men
would hire him to have sex with their wives or long-term partners, and they would
usually request that he verbally dominate and humiliate the male cuckold while he
was having sex with the cuckold's wife, fiance, or long-term girlfriend.

A few years ago, I interviewed a sex expert on my radio show by the name of Dr.
Susan Block. During the interview, we started talking about male sexual fantasies
vs. female sexual fantasies. Dr. Block went on to say that many of her male clients
that she engaged in 'therapy sessions' with confessed to her that they fantasized
about being either a voyeur or a cuckold. She said one of the factors that led to
these types of fantasies was men watching too much pornography. I found that
assessment to be very interesting.

Now that I have hopefully enlightened you on some of the reasons why a man would
knowingly allow his beloved female partner to have sex with other men, I'll say this: If
you are a man who already finds himself in one of these four categories, or you are a
man who is leaning toward one of these four categories, ultimately the only person's
opinion who counts is yours. Do not worry about what "other people" might think of
you. This is your life. You live and die with the repercussions and consequences of
your own choices and decisions.

Again, the only category of the four I have harsh criticisms of is the "marriage of
convenience" category. I do not believe in "sham marriages." If your marriage has
gotten to the point where you and your wife are no longer having sex at all, my
strong suggestion is that you should go ahead and file for divorce. The children will
eventually understand your decision.

As for the other three categories, I say do whatever floats your boat. It's your (sex)
life. Enjoy it.
Readers respond to the
sexual duplicity of women
and men who share their
women
In the 12th edition of "Feedback from Readers," male and female readers responded
with their thoughts, opinions, agreements and disagreements on the last six articles
featured in this column.

Click here to read the previous edition of "Feedback from Readers."

The responses that are highlighted are those that usually fall into one of three
categories:

A response that is representative of a very strong agreement to the

opinions expressed in one or more of the last six articles;

A response that is representative of a very strong disagreement to the

opinions expressed in one or more of the last six articles;

A desire for further clarification and understanding to something

expressed or asserted in a previous article.

[Note: All first names have been changed for the sake of anonymity, and many
questions and/or comments may have been edited, condensed or paraphrased to
some degree in order to either save space or correct spelling and grammatical
errors]

Email feedback #1 in response to the article, Examining the men who allow
their female companions to enjoy sex with other men

From Raymond B.:

"Brother Alan, you and I have been friends on Facebook for a while now, and I
always enjoy reading your articles on The Examiner. Your article on
polyamorousdating such as swinging and couple-swapping really caught my
attention. I am so glad you chose to write about this topic. Particularly, the portion of
the article where you discussed the idea of men who choose to be submissive
cuckolds and African-American male swingers who fulfill the role of the 'Black Bull'
for married Caucasian couples. I am actually in that category Mr. Currie! I cannot tell
you how many times I get propositioned by Caucasian women who are married. It is
literally unbelievable. I am not talking about nightclub skanks either. I am talking
about college-educated, professional women earning a six-figure salary. Sometimes,
I will get approached by the wife only, while other times I will get approached by both
the wife and the husband. The husband will very much want to be cuckolded, and
they both want me to the kinky and dominant Bull.

You mentioned that Dr. Phil said that approximately ten million men and women in
America are swinging. I disagree. That number is way too low. Swinging, couple-
swapping, and cuckolding is much more prevalent than mainstream America thinks it
is. If you are a Black man who is reasonably handsome, keeps your physique in
decent shape, intelligent, articulate, and packin' a wallop (i.e., well endowed), the
opportunities are endless. Thank you for bringing this to the mainstream
consciousness of your readers. Many of the Black women I know get attitudes
toward me when I tell them about my hookups with White women, but I could care
less. I'd rather mess around with a rich, married White woman any day than a broke,
unemployed Black woman with a funky attitude. Keep up the good work Brother
Currie!"

Alan Roger Currie's response: Well, with that last comment, you surely will not
attract any new African-American female friends!! I can tell though that you have
reached a point where you really could care less about 'haters' and harsh critics of
your lifestyle.

You are right. Polyamorous dating habits among American men and women have
grown exponentially over the last thirty or forty years. Before I moved to Los Angeles
in 1994, I never knew much about Polyamory. California is arguably the number one
state for swinging and couple-swapping, although the state of Maryland, according to
at least one magazine article I read, supposedly has the highest percentage of
African-American swingers.

That Black male adult film actor I mentioned in the article was the first one to tell me
specifically about the whole cuckolding scenario. I had no idea. He informed me that
many middle-aged and older Caucasian men will pay young athletic and virile Black
men big bucks to satisfy that fantasy. The idea of that blew my mind upon hearing
about it. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me!

Email feedback #2 in response to the article, Examining the men who allow
their female companions to enjoy sex with other men

From Cindy Lou W.:

"I have listened to your talk radio show off and on, but I just recently found out about
your articles on The Examiner. You will not believe how much that article about men
who openly share their women resonated with me. Oh my God! Over the years, I
have been in almost all four categories you described. In the last three or four years
of my first marriage, it was a sexless marriage, and my ex-husband and I both
started sleeping with other people. My second husband and I used to dabble in
swinging and couple-swapping, and he loved playing the role of the voyeur. Now, I
am married for the third time, and my current husband is really into the whole
cuckold scenario with Black men. I did not even want to marry my current husband.
He literally begged me to marry him. The only reason I married him is because he
offered to take care of all of my bills and living expenses. Sad to say, I no longer
have an attraction to Caucasian men sexually, but all of my husbands have been
White. I used to think I was one of the rare few women in this category until I read
your article. Now I don't feel so weird about what I do! I loved the part in your article
where you said your Human Sexuality 101 professor taught you that there is no such
thing as 'normal' sex. I feel more 'normal' now, thanks to your article Alan!"

Alan Roger Currie's response: Thank you for your confessions and your honesty
Cindy Lou. Trust me, you are not alone in your experiences by any means. Right
after my last article got published, I received literally dozens of Facebook messages
and private e-mail messages from women, and particularly Caucasian women,
sharing their stories related to one of the four categories of Polyamory that I
mentioned in the article.

One thing I discuss in my book, The Possibility of Sex: How Naive and Lustful
Men are Manipulated by Women Regularly, is that many women do not marry
men for genuine reasons like love and mutual attraction. You just highlighted that in
your response with your description of your current marriage situation. I know many
women who have dated men and married men primarily because that man was
fulfilling the role of the "Sugar Daddy" and "Financial Provider."

In my experience, I find that the vast majority of women are going to pursue men to
fulfill one of these three roles:

1. The Enjoyable and Satisfying Lover

2. The Ego booster / Personal Entertainer / Empathetic Listening Ear to

their Problems and Frustrations

3. The Sugar Daddy / Financial Provider

The men who are going to attract the highest quantity and quality of women are
those men who are a combination of Role #1 and Role #3. The second type of man
who will have his pick of the litter is the man who is exclusively in Role #1. If you are
a man who is exclusively in Role #2, most women are only going to want nothing
more than a purely platonic friendship with you. If you are a man who is perceived as
being a combination of Role #2 and Role #3, or exclusively in Role #3, many women
will string you along to believe that they want to have sex with you or enjoy having
sex with you, but really they do not. I do not hear about too many men who are a
combination of Role #1 and Role #2, but I am sure a few of them exist.

Your current husband is a combination of Role #2 and Role #3, which is why you feel
the need to have sex with other men who fulfill Role #1. Personally, when I am
romantically or sexually attracted to a woman, I never want to fall into Role #2
exclusively, Role #3 exclusively, or a combination of Role #2 and Role #3. Because
most of the women I have dated usually earned as much if not more money than me,
I rarely have fallen into Role #3. Knock on wood.

Email feedback in response to the article, Viral video 'Asking 100 Girls For Sex'
sends the wrong message to men and women
From Trina D.:

"Hello Mr. Currie. You and I are friends on Facebook, although I have never made
your acquaintance in person or spoken with you via the phone. I saw where you
posted an article about the video that shows a young guy approaching one hundred
women and asking for sex, and being turned down by all of them.

You argued in your article that this video was unrealistic because of the exceptionally
high number of rejections from the women, but I disagree. I would never respond
favorably or positively to a man approaching me and asking for sex right off the bat.
Never. He could be fine as hell with a gorgeous physique, and I would still turn him
down. That is so tacky to me. I do not want to be looked at as a walking, talking
vagina. I have much more to offer as a woman than just sex. I do not know any
respectable woman who was raised in the right way who would respond well to a
man opening up a conversation by asking for sex.

So tell me - is that what your books are about? Encouraging men to approach
women just for sex? If so, I am in disbelief. Shame on you Alan. I agree with you that
women do not like liars and game players, but I also would add in that most women
do not like men who are only after sex. That is a major turn-off for women."

Alan Roger Currie's response: All I have to say Trina is . . . speak for yourself. I
have met way more women in my lifetime who respect men who are open and
straightforwardly honest about the fact that they primarily want sex from a woman
than I have women who, like yourself, had harsh criticisms of such behavior.

It might be valid that YOU are 'turned off' by men who approach you exclusively
looking for short-term non-monogamous 'casual' sex, but trust me ... that is not an
attitude shared by ALL women, or even MOST women.

Most of the women who I have interacted with love and respect my upfront,
straightforward honesty regarding my sexual desires, interests, and intentions with
them. I have been criticized here and there, but not enough to discourage me from
exhibiting what I refer to as 'Mode One' behavior.

Responses like yours simply validate the points I made in that article. You know what
most men are going to do with you? If they know you possess the attitude you
expressed, they are going to approach you ... spend a number of days, weeks, or
months 'pretending' like they want a long-term, emotionally profound, monogamous
sexual relationship with you (i.e., a 'boyfriend-girlfriend' type relationship), but once
they have sex with you (assuming you engage in premarital sex with men of
interest), they are going to dump you and you will never hear from them again. I
cannot tell you how many women have repeatedly shared with me stories
representative of that series of events.

If that is the type of dishonest, disingenuous man you want to attract, be my guest.
Your feelings are going to get hurt in the long run. The reality is this: for roughly
every ten women that a man meets that he finds physically attractive and sexually
appealing, there are going to be a) one or two women who he wants a long-term
monogamous relationship with; b) two or three who he wants a more short-term
monogamous relationship with; c) another one or two women who he wants a long-
term non-monogamous relationship with; and d) the remaining number, he will only
want nothing more than short-term non-monogamous sex with (e.g., one-night stand,
weekend fling, etc.). Those percentages are not based on 'scientific research' or
verifiable statistics, but that is based on my own informal social research as well as
personal experiences and observations.

Whether a man wants long-term sex or short-term sex, monogamous sex or non-
monogamous sex, you should always invite a man to be upfront and
straightforwardly honest about what type of (sexual) relationship he really wants.
Then, you can either reciprocate his desires and interests or reject them. Otherwise,
again, you are just asking for men to lie to you and engage in manipulative 'head
games' with you indefinitely.

Email feedback #1 in response to the article, "Blurred Lines" is the ideal song
to describe today's sexually duplicitous woman

From Shaysanna M.:

"Other than your excessive use of bold text, italicized text, and the gross misuse of
quotation marks, I love your writing Mr. Currie!! (smiles) Your finger is truly on the
pulse of how men and women really think. I loved your recent article about Robin
Thicke's song, 'Blurred Lines' and the overall examination of the sexually duplicitous
woman.

I am probably going to be one of the few women you will receive a note from openly
acknowledging that I am a sexually duplicitous woman. In public, I always present
myself as the prudish good girl. My mother, aunts, and older sisters always
encouraged me to do so. But in bed, I am a total kinky freak (just the type of woman
you and most men love, I'm sure!).

As you alluded to in your article, it is really not my job as a woman to announce to

the world that I am kinky in bed. The challenge for any man I meet who I may be
interested in sleeping with is to motivate me to reveal and unleash that side to him. If
that man is not capable of bringing that side out of me when we are alone together,
he will never see that side of me. He will go on always believing that I am the biggest
prude in the world. On the flip side, if he truly knows the psychology of women, he
will realize that what I am presenting to him was what you referred to in your article
as a prudish facade. Kudos for this article. Keep being you Alan. Again, I love your
writing, but stop it with all of the quotations!!"

Alan Roger Currie's response: I have a good friend named Adrienne who recently
teased me about my use of quotation marks around certain words, terms, phrases,
and concepts. I cannot help myself!! I need to see a "grammatical therapist" or
something. See, I did it again.

I have to admit. I was genuinely surprised by the amount of positive feedback I

received from women regarding the article on "Blurred Lines" and women's sexual
duplicity. I thought I would I have more women criticize me, challenge me, or
disagree with me. Roughly 95% of the feedback I received from women was a
"thumbs up" (there goes those quotation marks again!).

Everything you expressed in your response is exactly how I feel. Your response is
why I wrote my book entitled, Oooooh . . . Say it Again: Mastering the Fine Art of
Verbal Seduction and Aural Sex. Within the context of my book, I refer to sexually
duplicitous women as "Pretenders." Say it Again is all about teaching men how to
identify and ultimately seduce 'Pretender' types. Women who are 'Pretenders,' like
you said, are rarely if ever going to just come out and say to a man, "I love indulging
in casual sex! I love engaging in kinky, free-spirited sex! Take me ... now!" They want
the man to 'talk that talk' and bring out their 'inner kinky freak' side (quotation marks
again!). I appreciate your candor Shaysonna (and yes, I love erotically uninhibited
women).

Email feedback #2 in response to the article, "Blurred Lines" is the ideal song
to describe today's sexually duplicitous woman

From Paulette E.:

"I am a sophomore in college, and my roommate had me read your article after she
discovered it on Twitter. Your article was entertaining and enlightening, but it left me
feeling somewhat frustrated as a young woman.

I know you have probably heard this a hundred times, but there is such a double
standard in society about men's sexuality vs. women's sexuality. If a man is kinky
and promiscuous, other men sing his praises and all is good. If a woman lets it be
known that she is kinky and even remotely promiscuous, the guys here on campus
will call you a ho, a slut, a freak, and all other sorts of undesirable, degrading labels.
I hate it.

I love sex. Not only relationship sex, but I love casual sex too if I find a guy really hot
and we have great chemistry. I am always afraid to sleep with guys too quickly
though because of what I already mentioned. I guess my simple question is, why are
men so judgmental and hypocritical? It is very frustrating for us women, and that is
why so many girls are what you described as sexually duplicitous. Sorry for venting,
but I just hate the way society is about women and their sexuality."

Alan Roger Currie's response: Paulette, no need to apologize for your frustrations.
All of us have them.

Yes, a good number of men want to have sex with dozens, if not hundreds of
attractive, sexy female partners in their lifetime, but many of those same men will
pass judgment on a woman if she has sex with more than five men in a fifteen year
period. Is it fair? Of course not. Is it right on their part? Of course not.

The only advice I can offer is that men will be men. You have 'good' ones and 'bad'
ones. Same with women. I say, once a man gives you the impression that he is
highly judgmental toward women ... avoid him. Do not have sex with him ever. If you
have already had sex with a guy who is 'kissing & telling' about his sexual
experiences with you to his male buddies, and he is attaching unflattering labels to
your name, trust me - karma is going to come back and bite him in the butt. I have
witnessed this happen to many times to count.

You will be happy to know that I criticize these types of men in my books. As I
mentioned in the article, most men suffer from the negative effects of what is known
as the 'Madonna / Whore Complex.' This is where that judgmental and sexually
hypocritical behavior stems from. For some men, as they mature, their level of petty
judgments toward women significantly decreases. For other men, their egotistical
insecurities and immaturity will always get the best of them.

In partial defense of many of these men, members of your own gender are many
times just as guilty. I know many women who quickly and frequently pass judgment
on the open-minded and free-spirited sexual habits of other women, and
subsequently attach a number of undesirable and highly subjective labels to their
name and reputation. Usually, it is because these women are jealous and envious
that the more erotically uninhibited girls are the ones receiving the most flattering
attention from the teenage boys and men than they are. Other times, it is because
they believe that all women should be offered 'incentives' and 'monetary rewards'
from men in exchange for their sexual companionship.

My final piece of advice: DO YOU. BE YOU. If you are comfortable with your
choices, decisions, and overall behavior, that is all that matters. Forget about the
opinions, expectations, subjective criticisms and petty insults of others. This is your
life. Enjoy it.
Radio show discussion
about manipulative women
gets female listeners riled
up
Apparently, a number of women take offense to being labeled and stereotyped as
"manipulative."

BlogTalkRadio's Upfront & Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie recently

attracted a lot of listeners, and a lot of feedback directed at the host and his guest.
Steve "The Dean" Williams, a fellow BlogTalkRadio Host and professional dating
coach earned some praise from many male listeners, but attracted a lot of harsh
criticisms from a number of women who either listened to the episode live or as an
archived podcast.

Even though most of those who submitted feedback already received replies directly
and privately, this column will highlight many of the questions, criticisms, and general
comments that were received in response to the recent episode entitled, "Beta
Males and the Manipulative Women who love to Control and Dominate Them."

[Note: Many of the first names have been modified for the sake of requested
anonymity, and some comments have been slightly paraphrased to correct spelling
and/or grammatical errors]

From Diana J:

"Alan, I have listened to a number of episodes from your internet talk radio show
over the last two years or more, and I find your show to generally be entertaining and
informative. Both conversations you had with the Hollywood actor and author Hill
Harper were excellent interviews, and I also loved your interviews with Tasha
Smith from the Tyler Perry movies and Buddy Lewis and Chrystee Pharris.

This last show you did? Complete garbage. I turned it off before it was even finished.
Once your guest, who calls himself 'The Dean,' uttered the words 'all of these ain't
sh** bitches out here,' I was done. And this guest is a friend of yours? Alan, you are
better than that. You allowed this guest to bring out your more highly profane and
misogynistic side. That guest talked about women as if they had no redeeming
qualities to offer whatsoever. Sure, we have our flaws and imperfections just like
men do, but to say that none of us are nothing more than sex objects put on earth to
please men? And I hated how he kept referring to all women as "bitches." I thought
that was highly disrespectful to your female listeners.
Please do not have guests like this on your show again. If you do, I will not be tuning
into your show any longer."

Alan's response: Diana, thank you for your feedback. Whether you express
opinions that I agree with, or disagree with, I always welcome honest responses from
my readers and radio show listeners.

I love having guests on my talk radio podcast program who are blunt, raw, and
straightforward with their thoughts, advice, words of wisdom, and strong opinions.
Steve "The Dean" Williams falls into this category. I do not want guests on my show
who offer nothing to my listeners other than "fluff talk" and advice that 'sounds good
on paper,' but would not really help them in the real world. I also do not like guests
who are "too polite" or "too cautious" with their words and opinions.

With all due respect to you and my other female listeners, the episode that aired last
Thursday was primarily for my male listeners. Even more specifically, single
heterosexual men. So, bottom line . . . there are going to be some episodes I already
have done, or plan on doing in the future, that you are not going to care for. If you
choose not to listen any longer, that is your choice.

From Sharisse G:

"Good afternoon Alan. You and I have exchanged a handful of Facebook messages
before, but it has been a long while since our last exchange. I listen to many
episodes of your show on BlogTalkRadio, and find many of your guest experts to
offer a lot of helpful dating advice for men and women.

When you or your guests criticize women, I try to listen with an objective ear and not
get too sensitive or reactive when I hear things that I do not like or do not agree with.
This last show you did challenged me in this respect greatly Alan!! Maybe I hang
around a different breed of women, but I do not view myself or any of my girlfriends
as 'manipulative.' What is your definition of a manipulative woman? And what makes
a man 'Alpha' versus 'Beta'? I tend to look at men as good guys and jerks. Is an
Alpha male a guy who acts like a jerk toward women, and a Beta male a guy who is
nice, sweet, and considerate? If so, I will take the Beta male any day of the week!! If
I have this perception wrong, please enlighten me. Thank you so much and keep
being you!"

Alan's response: I appreciate you taking the time to listen to various episodes of my
talk radio show, and more specifically, I really appreciate you listening to my most
recent episode. It is my loyal and consistent listeners that keep me motivated to
continue to do my show. Over the last six years, I have had more episodes that were
ranked as the number one "episode-of-the-week" in the categories of "Books,"
"Romance," and "Self-Help" than any other talk radio show on the BlogTalkRadio
Internet Radio Network, and that is because of listeners like yourself.

First off, what makes a woman deserve the label of being "manipulative?" If you
have read many of my previous Examiner.com articles, you will know that I have
always maintained that there are only roughly three types of men that women seek
to share the company of:
1. To share the company of a man who is an enjoyable and satisfying lover
in bed

2. To share the company of a man who is going to flatter them, entertain

them, and/or listen to them 'vent' about their problems, disappointments,
and frustrations (usually caused by their interactions with other men)

3. To share the company of a man who is going to 'wine and dine' them,
spoil them with materialistic gifts, and generally spend money on them
and help them with their month-to-month expenses and bills

Now, if a woman is upfront and straightforwardly honest with a man about which
category she wants him to fulfill for her, then that is when I would brand that woman
as "non-manipulative." For example, if a woman lets a guy know from the get-go that
she wants his companionship to exclusively fall into category #2 or category #3, then
I have no criticisms of this type of woman at all.

On the other hand, if a woman meets a man ... and she gives him the misleading
impression that she enthusiastically wants him to fall into category #1 ... but deep-
down, she really wants him to fulfill the needs of category #2 and/or category #3,
then this is when I would categorize a woman's behavior as "misleading and
manipulative." I refer to these women as "Timewasters." My last book, The
Possibility of Sex: How Naive and Lustful Men are Manipulated by Women
Regularly is all about these types of women.

As far as the 'Alpha' versus 'Beta' distinction, I would direct you to a previous article
of mine: How women respond to you often depends on your 'Alpha' vs. 'Beta'
traits. I wrote that article a little over three years ago.

Simple version? Let's say you could evaluate all (heterosexual) men on a scale from
"1" to "10."

A man who is a "10" would be the type of guy who could walk into a party, nightclub,
or social event, and have women quickly throwing themselves at him, and offering
him the opportunity to have sex with them before he barely opened his mouth. This
man generally has sex with multiple women without much conversation, without
offering any guarantees of monogamy or an exclusive commitment, or without
'wining and dining' a woman and/or spending hundreds or thousands worth of money
on that woman.

A man who is a "1" would be the type of guy who spends hours and hours engaged
in conversation with women on a daily and/or weekly basis ... spends money on
women freely and frequently .... flatters women's egos to the highest degree ... and
constantly expresses an interest in becoming the next boyfriend or future husband to
one or more of these women that he is drooling over. And guess what? None of
these women are willing to have sex with him.

The guy who is the "10" would represent the "most of Alpha of Alpha males," and the
guy who is the "1" would represent the "most Beta of Beta males." Very few men are
on either extreme. Most men are anywhere from a "2" to a "9", with your normal,
conventional "boyfriend" type or "husband" type usually being a "4," "5," "6," or "7."

General rule: The less conversation a man has to engage in with a woman in order
to get her in bed and the less money he has to spend on her in order to get in her
bed, the more 'Alpha' he is. If a man is flattering women excessively, spending
money on women constantly, and engaging in many episodes of trivial conversation
with women for hours on end, and that man is still having a hard time getting a
woman in bed, that would more so represent the behavior of a 'Beta male.'

In the world of urban "pimpology," all men generally fell into one of five categories:
Pimps, Players, Squares, Tricks, and Chumps. These labels were simply street
jargon variations of the different degrees of Alpha male tendencies vs. Beta male
tendencies.

Pimp: You have so much sexual influence on women, that you can persuade them
to have sex with your male friends and acquaintances as a favor to you, and you can
get women to spend money on you and perform financial favors for you on a regular
or semi-regular basis.

Player: You are so popular with women sexually that most of the women you are
having sex with do not mind the fact that you are perpetually non-monogamous and
are currently enjoying sexual relations with other women.

Square: Your typical "considerate boyfriend" and/or "loyal, loving husband" type.

Trick: You have a less-than-average degree of seductive influence with women, and
consequently, you have to offer to 'wine and dine' women and generally spend
money on women in order to motivate them to even entertain the idea of having sex
with you.

Chump: The worst of the worst. You spend money on women regularly, and spend
time conversing with them and socializing with them regularly, but yet none of these
women you are spending time with have any intention toward actually having sex
with you.

In the streets, Pimps and Players were considered Alpha males. Squares were
considered sort of "half-Alpha, half-Beta." Tricks and Chumps were considered
totally Beta. Next to a man's ability to get a woman in bed, the second most
characteristic that affects his 'Alpha' or 'Beta' status in the eyes of other men is how
much undesirable and/or disrespectful behavior he is willing to tolerate from a
woman. Alpha males rarely if ever tolerate crap from women with spoiled egos and
manipulative tendencies. Beta males, on the other hand, tolerate disrespectful and
manipulative behavior from controlling, domineering women all of the time.

Hope this helps you understand a lot of male psychology as it relates to a man's
ability to attract and seduce women, and what makes a woman earn the label of
"manipulative" or "non-manipulative."

From Laura Ann S:

"I listened to your last talk radio episode Alan, and Oh - My - God! Talk about a
hypocrite!! Your guest criticized the idea of dating single mothers, but then
confessed that he is married to a woman who was a single mother at the time he met
her? Is that, or is that not, hypocritical? Your guest also criticized the idea of man
dating older women (cougars) and thick women.

I am a single mother in my late thirties (would he consider that old?), and I am

heavier than I was when I was in college, and I have to tell you Alan - I have no
problem attracting a number of quality gentlemen. May I remind you that Halle
Berry was a single mother when she met her current husband, and she is very
happy now thank you!!

That guest of yours was sexist, chauvinistic, and misogynistic. I cannot believe he is
married. I do not always agree with some of the things you say Alan, but at least I
have never heard you attack older women, single mothers, or women who are
'pleasantly plump'!! I am sorry Alan, but I did not care for your guest at all.

By the way, I love your other show called The Erotic Conversationalist! I think I heard
your story about the 'scandalous' thing you did with your ex-girlfriend at that party on
an episode of your other show!"

Alan's response: Laura Ann, I appreciate the kudos on my other more adult-themed
podcast program entitled The Erotic Conversationalist. Probably 90-95% of my
listeners for that show are women (unlike Upfront & Straightforward, which has
slightly more male listeners than female). Women actually write me notes confessing
that they have engaged in "self-pleasure mode" while listening to episodes

All I have to say Laura Ann, is if you think The Dean is bad, then you never want to
listen to a radio show host by the name of Tom Leykis! Leykis is known for his harsh
criticisms of women who are forty years of age or older, women who are significantly
overweight, and women with children out of wedlock. Matter of fact, some of The
Dean's listeners have often referred to him as "The Black Tom Leykis." In fairness to
them, I would not categorize either one of them as a true misogynist. Please read
this article I wrote a while back: Many women still have no idea what a true
'misogynist' is

Speaking only for myself, I do not have a particular problem with older women,
heavy women, or women with children. Now, that being said though, I understand
where some of the criticisms from men towards these three groups come from.

Briefly . . .

Older women: Some women tend to become 'delusional' as they grow older. And
what I mean by that is, many women who are forty-five tend to think they can attract
single men just as easily as they did when they were twenty-five, and the reality is,
that is usually not going to happen. For example, I have observed some older
women on online matchmaking sites with profiles highlighting a very nitpicky laundry
list of "desirable attributes" that a man "must have" in order to date them, and as a
man, you find yourself shaking your head. I am not saying that older women should
"just date anyone who expresses interest," but what I am saying is that you have to
be realistic about just how 'choosy' you can afford to be.

Women with children: Since I turned forty, I have had at least one long-term
relationship with a woman who was over forty and was a single mother to one
daughter. I believe if a man is genuinely interested in a single mother, and she is
genuinely interested in him, there is no problem. The potential problem comes when
you have a woman who had two or three children by some "bad boy" type(s) in her
twenties or early thirties, but then as she get older, she begins to look for a Beta
Male 'Trick' or 'Chump' type to help share the expenses associated with raising her
children. The latter scenario is foul.

Overweight women: If a woman is overweight, and she is happy, more power to

her. Who am I to criticize her? The only criticism I have is toward women who are ...
dare I say it again ... a wee bit "delusional" about their weight. In other words, there
are some women who are forty pounds above their ideal weight who treat
themselves like they are only ten or fifteen pounds above their ideal weight. Or a
woman who is 75-100 pounds overweight, who behaves as if she is only 35-40
pounds overweight. As you get older, added weight is not simply an issue of vanity
and beauty ... it is a health issue. There is a huge difference between being "thick,"
"curvy," and/or "voluptuous," and being obese.

Readers and listeners . . . keep the feedback coming! Good, bad, flattering, or
critical ... keep it coming!
Once a prude gets 'turned
out,' there usually is no
going back
Can you turn a 'ho' into a housewife?

Famed rappers Jay-Z and Ludacris have some lyrics in their songs that suggest
that you cannot. Many men I have conversed with say 'no,' 'hell no,' and 'no way.' A
few others say, "It's possible."

In my opinion, it depends on what your definition of a 'ho' is. For every ten men you
ask, "What is your specific definition of a 'ho'?" you're going to probably receive four
or five different definitions.

If your definition of a 'ho' is a woman who has, or used to have, promiscuous

tendencies, then I know a good number of women in this category who are currently
married and playing the role of "happy housewife." Whether or not they are truly
dedicated to being monogamous with their current husbands is another story.

Some men, who are into swinging and couple-swapping, might want a 'ho' as a wife.
Gets them off.

Bottom line, I do not know if I can 100% agree with that adage.

The belief that I do agree fully with, and generally think is more valid, is that you
cannot convert a kinky freak back into a prudish good girl. I will not go as far as to
say that it is "impossible," but barring some sort of highly undesirable and really
traumatic sexual experience (e.g., the woman gets raped, date-raped, or something
similar), it is highly unlikely.

The vast majority of men who have daughters fear the day their daughter gets
"turned out" by some guy who their daughter is infatuated with or intrigued by. I had
a friend of mine by the name of Jason call into my talk radio podcast
program, Upfront & Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie, last Thursday. At
one point in the conversation, he said, "I've turned out a lot of women in my day ...
and did the next guy a favor. Sometimes, I've had women come to me that had
already been turned out by another brutha. He did me a favor."

What does it mean to be "turned out?" (I had a few female listeners, young in age,
write me and ask me that question after last week's episode of my show concluded)

Let's say, you are a vegetarian. I offer you a bite of one of my jerk chicken wings.
You say, "Well ... I don't know. After all, I am an active vegetarian ...." I say,
"C'mon .... just have one bite. You know you want to taste this nice, juicy, grilled jerk
wing ... it won't kill you ...." Finally, you say, "Okay ... just one bite of your jerk wing."
You take a bite. You like the taste of it.

Now, to my surprise, you want ANOTHER bite. Instead of giving in to your wishes, I
play with you a bit. I say, "No ... not so fast. Maybe next week. Or next month. But
not right now." Next thing I know, you are like, "Please Alan .... please. Please let me
have another bite of those delicious Caribbean jerk wings. PLEASE." What did I do?
Even though you professed to being a vegetarian, I just "turned you out" on
Caribbean jerk chicken wings.

Now ... I did not "force you" to take a bite. I did not put a gun to your head or even
twist your arm. What I did was expose the fact that deep down, you really wanted to
taste that jerk wing.

You ever wonder why men and women become addicted to alcohol, drugs, or other
substances and activities? Without getting too lengthy or too academic, all of us
have what is known as a "pleasure center" in our brains. Let's say that a thirty-floor
building represents the various levels of enjoyment and satisfaction that your
'pleasure center' can experience.

Now if the highest floor you've ever visited is the twelfth floor, then you have no idea
what you are missing on the fifteenth floor, twentieth floor, twenty-fifth floor, or
thirtieth floor. But if someone invited you up to the twentieth floor - and it blew your
mind - the twelfth floor is not going to seem as appealing any more. It's going to
seem boring and mundane. Soon, you're going to start craving for a second, third,
and fourth visit to the twentieth floor. Days, weeks, or months later, the twenty-first
floor. Then, the twenty-second floor. And so on, and so on.

It's the same with sexual experiences for men and women. Most erotically
conservative, 'prudish' type women can usually resist engaging in episodes of ultra-
kinky, free-spirited, adventurous type sex because they really do not feel like they
are missing anything. How could they miss the hedonistic pleasures of kinky sex if
they have never indulged in even one episode of it?

This is where persuasive, charming guys with small "devil horns" on their head come
into play. You noticed that I did not say, "coercive and/or abusive guys."

If I am dating a woman, and she just has no interest in having sex in public (like say,
on a beach or in a park), and I start yelling at her, trying to make her feel bad or feel
guilty for not wanting to accommodate me, and basically start trying to 'force' her to
engage in a sexual act that she has no desire to, that is not representative of 'turning
a woman out.' That would be foul. That is more so trying to forcibly turn a woman into
your own personal sex slave against her will.

To truly turn a woman out is when a woman already possesses some degree of
'curiosity' toward a particular sexual activity, but she has resisted the temptationto
indulge up to this point because of the 'taboo' or 'wildly kinky' nature of the activity.
For example, the woman who deep-down has always wanted to perform fellatio on a
partner of hers while he is driving, but her very religious mother told her as a
teenager, "Good girls do not do such things." It is not so much that she is not
interested in performing oral sex ... it's just that her mind keeps listening to her
mother's domineering voice.

Alan Roger Currie's definition of "Turning someone out": Anytime a man or woman is
able to persuade their spouse, partner, or casual sex lover to develop an enjoyable
'addiction' toward an erotic activity that this particular man or woman initially was
very reluctant to indulge in because of the taboo or openly free-spirited nature of the
erotic activity.

A handful of specific examples:

A woman initially refuses to use any sort of profane or erotically explicit

language during foreplay or sex, but weeks or months later, because of
the persuasiveness of her husband, long-term boyfriend, or casual lover,
she now is practically addicted to engaging in X-rated erotic dirty talk.
Verdict: She got 'turned out' on the idea of talking dirty.

A woman initially has a strong, adverse reaction to the suggestion by her

boyfriend of them inviting another woman into their bedroom to engage in
a mnage trois; Six months later, this same woman is now regularly
introducing her boyfriend to her attractive girlfriends and inviting them to
have sex with her and her boyfriend. Verdict: This woman's boyfriend
'turned her out' on the idea of engaging in threesomes and group sex.

A woman initially only wants to have sex in the bedroom of her

apartment; Weeks later, a charming guy who she is smitten with
persuades her to have sex at the beach, and she slowly but surely starts
warming up to the idea of having sex in public. Verdict: She got 'turned
out' on the idea of having sex in public places.

A woman initially presents herself as a young lady who will only have sex
with a man within the context of marriage, or at minimum, within the
context of a long-term monogamous relationships ... but after indulging in
a one-night stand with a male celebrity who she greatly adored, she is
now very open to the idea of short-term, non-monogamous 'casual' sex
with a number of other men she meets. Verdict: The male celebrity
'turned her out' on the idea of spontaneous, instantaneous sexual
gratification with new male acquaintances

A man who initially categorized phone sex as 'silly,' 'stupid,' and 'a waste
of time' has a woman he previously dated make him realize that hot,
kinky phone sex can not only be enjoyable for him, but that he could
actually earn some money from it (hint, hint, wink, wink). Verdict: The
man who initially despised phone sex later on becomes damn near
fanatical about the activity because a former flame 'turned him out' on the
idea of enjoying phone sex and even profiting from it.

Returning to my original point, 90-99% of the time, once you turn a woman (or man)
out ... there is no turning back.
Let's say that every woman falls on a scale from "1" to "10," with "1" representing a
woman that is full of nothing but prudish thoughts, attitudes and beliefs and "10"
representing a woman who is so kinky and open-minded that she would make the
average adult film actress blush; Once a woman makes the transition from a "3" to
an "8," she is not going to make a good wife for a man who is looking for a spouse
who is a "5" or a "6." She can 'play the role' indefinitely .... but soon, she is going to
become bored and start looking for a man who is more her "speed."

Sexual compatibility is crucial in marriages and long-term relationships. Realistically,

very few relationships or marriages will be enjoyable, satisfying, or long-lasting if the
woman is an "8" and the man is a "3" or the woman is a "2" and the man is a "9." At
maximum, the relationship is going to end ... and at minimum, someone is going to
cheat.

This is why many conservative mothers and overprotective fathers want their
daughter's husbands to be the only men to "turn out" their daughters. They do not
want "Joe Womanizer" from her college football team who has no plans on marrying
her to convert her from a conservative prude into a wild kinky freak. Among other
reasons, they know that once their former 'good girl' daughter truly gets 'turned out,'
she is going to crave men with an 'adventurous edge' who offer lots and lots of erotic
satisfaction and excitement' in bed for the woman. And nine times out of ten, the
parents know that their daughter is going to be just "one of many" for Joe
Womanizer. She will never be Ms. Special in his eyes.

As I alluded to above, it is not always men who 'turn out' women. I know a number of
cases where women have turned out men. My own late mother hated when older
women would flirt with me when I was a teenager. She would say, "I don't like that
fast ass woman. She's just trying to get you under her spell and work her magic with
you." That was my mother's very 'old school' way of saying, "That older woman
wants to get you in bed and turn you out, and as your mother, I do not approve of
that." Needless to say, years later, I did have some women who were ten-to-twenty
years older than me teach me a new trick or two. I would be reluctant to
acknowledge that they 'turned me out' though.

In conclusion, a woman being 'turned out' is not a totally 'bad' thing .... but it is not
necessarily a 'good' thing either. Depends on the woman, and her long-term dating
and relationship desires. If a man suffers from "Madonna / Whore Complex" issues,
then yes ... her being 'turned out' can and will cause problems. Otherwise, not so
much.

In the meantime, let me get back to responding to an Email message I received from
a young graduate student. She listened to an episode of my adult-themed podcast
program, The Erotic Conversationalist, and she wrote, "I had no idea that men
and women talk like this! I feel like such a verbal prude!!"

Uh oh. I feel my little devil horns coming out of my forehead.

She's probably a "3" or "4" right now, but after a few provocative phone
conversations ....
Happy Thanksgiving.
When some confuse love
with monogamous sex, a
can of worms is sure to be
opened
When you express the words, "I love you" to your husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend,
or significant other, what does that REALLY mean?

1) I want to spend as much time with you as humanly possible; I miss you terribly
when we are apart from one another

2) Even if you lost your job, gained one hundred pounds, or stopped satisfying me in
bed, I would still choose to be totally loyal and sexually monogamous to you, and
only you, from now until the day I die

3) I would give my life in order to save yours without thinking twice about it

4) Even when you anger me, irritate me, and/or leave me frustrated, I still have a
strong desire to share your company on a regular basis indefinitely

5) You are so good-looking and sexually appealing, that I cannot stop staring at you
and I cannot stop touching you

6) I care deeply about you and your well-being, but that doesn't mean I will stop
having sex with other people

7) I don't mind buying you gifts and performing financial favors for you without
expecting anything tangible in return

8) I want you to feel 'special' and 'warm and fuzzy' inside, and I want your ego to be
flattered, but once you stop spending money on me and/or you stop being an
enjoyable, satisfying sex partner, I am totally done with you

9) All of the above, except for #6 and #8

10) None of those definitions accurately represent my idea of "true love"; when I tell
my partner "I love you," what I am really saying to him/her in specific terms is that
___________________________ [insert your own definition in the comments
section below, or write me a private Email]

According to Greek philosophers, there are generally three types of "love":

Agape or Spiritual love (this type of love is considered totally selfless; You show
love to a person without expecting anything tangible or intangible in return; Examples
would be the love of a parent for one or more of their children or the love Jesus
Christ had for his Christian disciples)

Philos or Platonic love (this represents the type of love that two close friends would
have, two teammates, two co-workers, teacher-student, two siblings, etc.; this type of
bonding usually does not include any type of sexual activity whatsoever)

Eros or Erotic / Sexual love (this represents the type of romantic love and
emotional bond that is experienced between two people who are engaging in
regular, semi-regular, or occasional sexual relations)

When asked of my own definition of love (and more specifically, the 'Eros' type love),
I usually respond with a simple "formula" of "Friendship + Lust = Love." I do not
believe "true love" can exist indefinitely without both components. If you take away
the physical attraction and sexual lust component, then all you have is really a good,
strong platonic friendship. Conversely, if two people who are regularly having sex
with one another have no sense of genuine friendship, then all you really have is a
'casual sex' relationship between two people who love to get together in order to
exchange orgasms.

Just a few weeks ago, I received a lot of feedback from those who listen to my talk
radio podcast program, because I highlighted a story where a woman who was
cheating on her boyfriend was performing oral sex on me. In the middle of the act,
she received a call on her mobile phone from her boyfriend. She lied to her
boyfriend, and told him that she was "at the (shopping) mall with one of her
girlfriends." As the conversation came to a close, she said, "I love you...." and then
ended the call. Seconds later, she returned to performing fellatio on me.

During that particular episode of my show, I made the comment that, "See how many
women lie? No way was that woman in love with her boyfriend if she was sucking my
d***." First, I had a male listener challenge that opinion of mine. He said, "I disagree
Alan. I do believe, in her mind, that she does believe she is in love with her
boyfriend. She was having sex with you because you fulfill a need for her, and she
wanted to fulfill a need for you, but she is not in love with you. She loves her
boyfriend." At the time, I was like, "Whatever . . ."

To my surprise, a number of the women who wrote me echoed the sentiments of that
male caller. One of them said, "I love my boyfriend ... very much ... but I will confess
that I am not monogamous with him. I know for a fact that he has had sex with other
women, and I have on occasion had sex with other men. Alan, you seem to be
confusing feelings of love with the desire for a monogamous sexual relationship, and
that is when a lot of problems arise. Those two concepts are not necessarily
synonymous."

A week or two later, I had a female guest on my show by the name of "Celeste" who
essentially said the same thing. During my interview, she mentioned that she was in
a "long term, loving relationship...." I said, "So you prefer long-term monogamous
relationships huh?" She replied, "That is you who put the 'monogamous' in there. Not
me. You do not have to be monogamous with someone in order to be in love with
them." Again, I was surprised because these are comments I expect men to make -
not women.

As a female friend of mine recently put it during a phone conversation, "Alan, if a

woman has seven children, do you think it is impossible for her to show all of her
children a heavy dose of love?" I said, "Well of course not. But you are referring to a
different type of love." My friend replied, "Maybe, but I feel like this: a woman can
feel like she is in love with three different men, and be having sex concurrently with
three different men. On the other hand, you could have another woman who is
having sex with only one man, but not feel like she is in love with him at all." I rubbed
my chin on that thought.

If you are a woman reading this, have you ever felt like you were "in love" with two or
more men at the same time?

If you are a man reading this, have you ever felt like you were "in love" with two or
more women at the same time?

Just about all polygamists and those who favor polyamorous relationships believe
that you can love more than one sex partner at a time. That actually is a major staple
of their professed lifestyle.

Do you think the idea of monogamy causes more problems than it prevents? Or vice
versa?

Do you think men and women who have multiple sex partners are incapable of
experiencing "true love" with anyone?

I have known way too many women who confuse enjoyable, satisfying sex with
"love." Those two are apples and oranges. I think the hormone oxytocin plays a big
part in why that happens so often with women (oxytocin is the hormone that is
released when a woman gives birth to a child, that causes her to immediately 'bond'
with her son or daughter; Researches found that oxytocin is also released in women
when they experience a very powerful, satisfying orgasm, which provokes them to
want to 'bond' with the man who is causing those great orgasms).

I can think of times when I have had sex with a woman one hundred plus times, and
never once felt like I was "in love" with that woman. On the flip side, I can think of a
handful of women who made me feel like I was "falling in love" with them, and that
woman and I had not had sex even one time. For most men, a woman can be an
absolute outstanding sex partner, but if she possesses personality quirks and
characteristics that lower our motivation to want to spend time with her non-sexually,
than we will never feel like we are 'in love' with that woman.

My final question would be, if the idea of loving someone generally means accepting
that person for who they really are ... and that partner accepting you for who you
really are ... why the need to be dishonest?
Author Esther Perel once said in an interview on my talk radio show that a man or
woman should only confess a "long-lasting, on-going affair" to their spouses or
romantic companions, but if they engage in a one-night stand or weekend fling, they
should generally keep those erotic trysts to themselves. Doesn't that contradict the
whole notion of "true love?"

In Ms. Perel's partial defense, I have had some friends and acquaintances who feel
the same way. One male friend told me, "If my wife has cheated on me, and it was a
one-night thing or one-weekend thing, I do not wish to know about it. I would rather
she keep that to herself." Really? Wow. What if the wife has had thirty "one-night
stands" and/or "weekend flings?" Does that change anything?

All I know is, if a woman professes to "love me" ... but she feels the need to lie to me,
and give me the impression she is in a shopping mall with her girlfriend, but in reality,
she is performing fellatio on some guy who she finds sexually appealing, I cannot
say I would welcome that type of "love" with open arms and a boat load of
enthusiasm.

But - to be fair - everyone has their own definition of what "true love" is.

Again, my definition is: A strong, genuine friendship with a woman + a strong desire
to want to be sexually intimate with her on a regular basis = Romantic Love. And for
me ... that friendship includes brutal, blunt honesty about everything.

What is yours?
20 female movie characters
who represent the type of
women that men should
avoid
The Femme Fatale.

I believe we all would agree that in today's dating scene, there are good men, bad
men, good women, and bad women. Many of my male readers feel like the
Entertainment Industry (and more specifically, the feature-film industry) does not
highlight nearly as many "bad women" characters as they do "bad men" characters.

I would partially agree with this criticism. The business-related reality is, women
purchase more movie tickets than men do on a yearly basis. The vast majority of
feature films that went on to become a major success at the box office are usually
those that either a) attracted both men and women to the movie theater, or at
minimum, b) attracted a high number of women alone (or maybe single moms and
their children).

I have met a number of men in my life that have confessed to only watching an
average of five-to-ten films per year at the movie theater (as opposed to a self-
proclaimed 'movie buff' like me who probably watches an average of twenty-five to
forty films per year at least once at the movie theater). So, bottom line, you could
argue that Hollywood is not stupid. They do not want to "bite the hand that feeds
them," so therefore, they are not going to produce too many films that have the main
female character as 'the bad guy' while the main male character is the 'naive
helpless victim.'

A "Femme Fatale" is a common term for a female movie character who uses her
looks, charm, and sex appeal in order to manipulate naive and horny men into
performing various financial and non-financial favors for them. Sometimes, it might
be a favor as extreme as, "I want you to murder my cheating husband for me," while
other times the fictional female character might just want to use a man to improve
her overall quality of life (e.g., get the man to buy her a better car, a better house,
more expensive clothes, or help her land a higher salaried job).

In my fourth book entitled The Possibility of Sex: How Naive and Lustful Men are
Manipulated by Women Regularly, I describe at least six types of women that men
should generally avoid. Those women are:

- Timewasters (a woman who will initially give a man the misleading impression that
she has some degree of romantic and/or sexual interest in him, but in reality, she is
just looking for flattering attention, entertaining platonic companionship, financial and
non-financial 'favors,' or a "male girlfriend" to gossip with and vent with)

- Gold Diggers / Social Climbers (a woman who will date a man, or even marry a
man, more so because of his high degree of career success, social status, and
wealth than because of a genuine romantic interest in the guy)

- Man Thieves (a woman who is trying their best to "steal a man away" from his
current wife or girlfriend)

- Drama Queens (a woman who, at minimum, is extremely jealous, argumentative,

and hard to get along with, and at maximum, suffers from some sort of personality
disorder or mental illness)

- Misandrists (a 'misandrist' is a woman who interacts with men with a high degree
of hatred toward them, resentment toward them, disdain for them, and/or a general
lack of respect for them)

- Liars / Cheaters / Adulteresses (pretty self-explanatory)

The problem with men, is that many of them are so hung up on women's level of
physical attractiveness, and so weak to a woman with an above average degree of
sex appeal, that we do not tend to pay attention to the flaws and weaknesses of a
woman's character, integrity, and overall personality usually until after we have
already invested a significant amount of time, effort, money, or emotions.

There are a lot of films that I may have overlooked or just did not tickle my fancy, so I
am sure that some men and women will write me and say, "Hey Alan! You forgot to
mention [insert name of actress here] who played the character of [insert the
deceitful and/or manipulative character's name in the film here] in the movie [insert
film title here]!! She was really something else!!"

Of the films I have seen and selected, I tried to identify at least three women who fall
into one or more of the six categories mentioned above that are highlighted in my
book, The Possibility of Sex. I have probably met at least two or three women in real
life who exhibited behavior that was very similar to the behavior of these fictional
female characters included in my list.

If you totally agree with my choices ... write me and let me know! If you have harsh
criticisms and totally disagree with some of my choices ... write and let me know! I
might feature your feedback in a future article (but I would not use your real name,
unless you specifically ask me to).

So, without further ado, I present to you my list of 20 fictional female characters
in movies that represent the type of women that you want to avoid pursuing as
a a) wife, b) long-term girlfriend, or c) casual lover. Start viewing the list of
characters by CLICKING HERE.
Warning: Many of the character descriptions include storyline and plot "spoilers" for
those who have not viewed these films; Avoid reading the full description if you see a
"Spoiler" notation included if you want to watch the film first

___________________________________________________________________
_______

Alan Roger Currie is the author of a number of books, including Mode One: Let the
Women Know What You're REALLY Thinking and Oooooh . . . Say it Again:
Mastering the Fine Art of Verbal Seduction and Aural Sex. Currie's latest
eBook, The Possibility of Sex: How Naive and Lustful Men are Manipulated by
Women Regularly is also available exclusively on Amazon.com in their Kindle
format. You can also download a copy of Currie's eBook on your iPhone, Android
Smartphone, or other Smartphone.

Upfront & Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie, the most-listened to talk radio
podcast program in the category of "Romance" and "Self-Help for Relationships" on
the BlogTalkRadio Internet Radio Network, can be heard LIVE every Thursday
evening at 10:00pm EST / 7:00pm PST.
Visithttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/modeone and http://modeone.net for more
details

Currie offers email, telephone, and Skype consultations to both men and women;
Visit http://modeone.net/products or http://popexpert.com/seduction to
purchase a consultation.

#20 - Jurnee Smollett-Bell as "Judith" in "Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor"

(2013) Google Images
#20 - Jurnee Smollett-Bell as "Judith" in "Temptation:
Confessions of a Marriage Counselor" (2013)
General premise of the movie:

An ambitious married woman initially resists the sexual advances of a successful

multimillionaire, but later gives in to his charm and persistence, and her extramarital affair
forever alters her personal and professsional life
Which of the six categories of 'women to avoid' does this female movie character fall
into? Liar / Cheater / Adulteress

IMDb.com page for Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor

Commentary about this film and/or particular character: There used to be a time that
when you heard the term "cheater," the label was usually being associated with a man with
promiscuous tendencies. In the 21st Century, this is no longer the case. In today's society,
many publications have reported that married women cheat on their husbands just as much if
not more than married men cheat on their wives.

Judith (Actress Jurnee Smollett-Bell) has a great husband (Actor Lance Gross) who loves her
to death, but sadly, Judith slowly but surely gives in to the bold sexual advances of a wealthy
businessman named Harley (Actor Robbie Jones) who has all of the trappings of career
success and wealth, and he also knows how to handle his business and satisfy women in bed.

***PLOT SPOILER BELOW***

The saddest thing about the story is not only does she totally mess over her loyal and loving
husband, but she ends up contracting the HIV virus from Harley, who unbeknownst to her, is
HIV-positive.

Unlike some of the other female movie characters featured in this list, Judith was not really
"evil" or "blatantly manipulative." Her crime was that she was young, naive, and weak in
response to the seductive charms of a handsome, highly manipulative womanizer.

This film is a cautionary tale for married women who might think that the "grass is greener"
in another man's yard.

#19 - Margarita Levieva as "Heather" in "Spread" (2009)Google Images

#19 - Margarita Levieva as "Heather" in "Spread" (2009)
General premise of the movie:

A handsome, womanizing bachelor who has a history of using women for their money and
material possessions meets a waitress who he falls in love with, but she is resistant to become
his long-term girlfriend because he is frequently broke and unemployed
Which of the six categories of 'women to avoid' does this female movie character fall
into? Gold Digger / Social Climber

IMDb.com page for Spread

Commentary about this film and/or particular character: Margarita Levieva's character
of "Heather" is, in some ways, similar to Robin Given's character of Jacqueline in the 1992
romantic comedy Boomerang starring comedian Eddie Murphy.

There is a long-standing belief that all men who are prolific womanizers will meet at least
one woman who they will fall hard for, but that woman will usually end up manipulating
them or breaking their heart. In this film, Heather is that woman.

***PLOT SPOILER BELOW***

Heather does not really reveal her true character until almost the very end of the movie. In a
nutshell, Ashton Kutcher's character of Nikki is a smooth, charming womanizer who usually
hooks up with middle aged women who are wealthy and horny for the sexual companionship
of a young male with an athletic physique. If it were not for Nikki's looks and seductive
charm with women, he would probably be homeless.

When Nikki meets Heather, he is immediately smitten, but the reality is, Heather is basically
a female version of Nikki; she typically dates older men who spoil her with material gifts and
financial favors.

At the end of the movie, Nikki is willing to give up his womanizing ways and purchases an
engagement ring for Heather, only for Heather to break his heart by telling him that she is
about to marry an older, wealthy man (who she is not even genuinely in love with) because
she feels Nikki does not have enough to offer her in terms of career success and financial
stability.

Some studios would have ruined this film by creating a "love conquers all, and everyone lives
happily ever after" type ending. I very much loved the fact that this underrated romantic
drama had a 'real' ending to it, because the reality is, even if a woman is not really
"materialistic," she still wants a man who can at least pay his own bills.

#18 - Rooney Mara as "Emily" in "Side Effects" (2013) Google Images

#18 - Rooney Mara as "Emily" in "Side Effects" (2013)
General premise of the movie:

A woman with a documented history of mental illness experiences many detrimental "side
effects" from a prescribed drug she has been taking, and accidentally murders her husband
during an episode of sleepwalking, which is one of the reported side effects of her drug

Which of the six categories of 'women to avoid' does this female movie character fall
into? 1) Gold Digger / Social Climber 2) Misandrist

IMDb.com page for Side Effects

Commentary about this film and/or particular character: This is one of those films that
has a most interesting "twist" to the storyline.

***PLOT SPOILER BELOW***

On the surface, Emily (Actress Rooney Mara) appears to be a woman who suffers from a
high degree of mental illness problems, and consequently, she is prescribed a number of
medications to help keep her mentally and emotionally stable. One particular drug is given to
her by new psychiatrist, Dr. Banks (Actor Jude Law), and she later claims that the drug
causes her to "sleepwalk," and during one episode of sleepwalking, she ends up murdering
her husband.

In reality, Emily is frustrated that her husband no longer has the wealth and social status that
he used to, because he got busted for insider trading and had to go to prison for a number of
years.

After her husband (Actor Channing Tatum) gets released from prison, Emily no longer is
interested in being married to him because he no longer earns the seven figure salary that he
used to. So, Emily - with the help of her (bisexual or lesbian) lover and former psychiatrist
(Actress Catherine Zeta Jones) - decides to kill her husband and collect on his insurance
policy.

If any naive man reading this believes that all women date and marry men because of "true
love," then you need to wake up, and wake up quick. There are many manipulative women
who do not love their husbands AT ALL, and are only with them because of their husband's
level of career success, wealth, and social status.

Not only is Emily a gold digger and a status seeker, but the story implies that she is not even
attracted to men romantically or sexually. At maximum, she is a lesbian, and at minimum,
she is bisexual. In the same manner that many gay men will pretend to be heterosexual and
get married to a woman for the sake of public appearances and the pursuit of their ambitions,
there are many lesbian women who do the same thing with men.

If you are a man, and women ignored you before you got that new "great job" and that big
fancy house, but now all of the sudden those same women are 'crazy over you' because you
just purchased a brand new convertible Porsche, be afraid. Be very afraid.
#17 - Kerry Washington as "Nikki" in "I Think I Love My Wife" (2007) Google Images
#17 - Kerry Washington as "Nikki" in "I Think I Love My
Wife" (2007)
General premise of the movie:

A Manhattan businessman who is frustrated that his wife rarely if ever seems to be in the
mood for sex finds himself tempted to cheat on her when he crosses paths with the former
mistress of one of his best friends

Which of the six categories of 'women to avoid' does this female movie character fall
into? Man Thief

IMDb.com page for I Think I Love My Wife

Commentary about this film and/or particular character: There have been many married
men who argue that once you tie the knot with a woman, the sex decreases instead of
increases. This romantic comedy featuring comedian Chris Rock presents an example of this
phenomenon.

Rock plays Richard Cooper, and Richard's wife (Actress Gina Torres) is so busy raising their
children and attending to the everyday responsibilities and obligations of family life, that she
unintentionally finds herself putting sex with her husband on the back burner as a low
priority.

Enter the character of Nikki Tru (Actress Kerry Washington). Nikki is the former mistress of
one Richard's best friends, and soon Nikki is flirting with Richard and tempting him to cheat
on his wife with her. Most of the film centers on Richard trying to maintain the self-discipline
not to cheat on his wife, because he knows he has a good wife and great family at home.
Nikki does not make things easy though.

It is a known fact that many women tend to find married men much more appealing than
bachelors. Many women in society specifically go after married men, and tempt them with
frequent opportunities for wild, kinky sex. Some men stay strong and resist the charms of a
seductress, but many men give in.

You never want to sacrifice a good wife for a sexy piece of ass. Even if that piece of ass
looks like popular Actress Kerry Washington of Scandal fame. Be strong fellas.
#16 - Tasha Smith as "Angela" in "Why Did I Get Married?" (2007) and "Why Did I Get
Married Too?" (2010) Google Images
#16 - Tasha Smith as "Angela" in "Why Did I Get
Married?" (2007) and "Why Did I Get Married Too?"
(2010)
General premise of the movie(s):

A group of middle class friends get together for a much needed vacation, but the men and
women involved end up revealing the flaws and weaknesses in their respective relationships
and marriages

Which of the six categories of 'women to avoid' does this female movie character fall
into? Drama Queen

IMDb.com page for Why Did I Get Married?

IMDb.com page for Why Did I Get Married Too?

Commentary about these films and/or this particular character: If any character could be
arguably voted the "funniest" of the female characters included in this list, it would be
Actress Tasha Smith's portrayal of Angela in Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married? and the
sequel, Why Did I Get Married Too?

Angela is a classic example of a woman who is extremely jealous, possessive, argumentative,

and controlling. Her husband, Marcus (Actor Michael Jai White) tries his best to be patient
with her and tolerant of her non-stop nagging, but it periodically wears on him.

In real life, a wife or girlfriend who exhibits behavior like Angela is anything but funny. I
have known many African-American men who have stopped dating African-American
women altogether because they accused many of them of being a combination of too
argumentative, too controlling, and too disrespectful.

The reality is, this is nowhere near an exclusively African-American problem. As a

professional Dating Coach, I have met Asian men, Caucasian men, and Hispanic men who
also accuse women of their same race and ethnicity of being annoying nags and drama
queens.
At minimum, women like this are usually a combination of spoiled and egotistically insecure,
and at maximum, many of the "drama queen" types suffer from either a "personality disorder"
(such as histrionic personality disorder) or some other form of mental illness.

If you, as a man, meet a woman who displays a number of signs of being a potential drama
queen prior to her becoming your long-term girlfriend or wife, I would think twice about
continuing with a relationship with that particular woman. Your marriage will go from
'heaven' to 'hell' very quickly.

#15 - Gwyneth Paltrow as "Michelle" in "Two Lovers" (2008) Google Images

#15 - Gwyneth Paltrow as "Michelle" in "Two Lovers"
(2008)
General premise of the movie:

A Brooklyn bachelor is being persuaded by his parents to marry the daughter of his father's
business associate, but the problem is that the bachelor is not really attracted to the woman.
Later, he meets a female neighbor who he finds himself very attracted to

Which of the six categories of 'women to avoid' does this female movie character fall
into? Timewaster

IMDb.com page for Two Lovers

Commentary about this film and/or particular character: If you have read any of my
books, you know that I generally divide women into four categories:

Reciprocators

Rejecters

Pretenders

Timewasters

In Part One of my fourth book, The Possibility of Sex: How Naive and Lustful Men are
Manipulated by Women Regularly, I describe four sub-categories of 'Timewaster' types that
I believe men should avoid socializing with on a regular or semi-regular basis.
In a nutshell, a 'Timewaster' is a woman who never makes it clear to a man that she is
interested in sharing his company in a romantic and/or sexual manner ... but at the same
time ... she never makes it specifically clear that she is not interested in dating a man or
engaging in casual sex with that man either.

Timewaster types love to keep their interest in a man (or lack thereof) very vague and
ambiguous. Actress Gwyneth Paltrow's character of Michelle is a woman who falls into this
category.

***PLOT SPOILER BELOW***

Leonard (Actor Joaquin Phoenix) is being pressured by his parents to get engaged to a
woman who is the daughter of his father's friend and business associate. The problem is,
Leonard only has a lukewarm interest in this woman.

After moving into a place of his own, he soon befriends an attractive neighbor of his named
Michelle (Paltrow). The two mainly operate as just "friends" and "neighbors," but soon
Leonard finds himself falling in love with Michelle.

The challenge for Leonard is that Michelle is hung up on a married guy who keeps promising
her that he is going to leave his wife for her, but he never does. Late in the movie, Michelle
slowly but surely finds herself becoming more and more attracted to Leonard, but just when
Leonard is about to propose marriage to Michelle, she informs Leonard that the married guy
has (once again) promised to leave his wife, so she breaks Leonard's heart and leaves for yet
another visit with her married lover.

Leonard then turns his attention back to Sandra (the woman who his parents want him to
marry), and he goes ahead and decides to continue the relationship with her.

I cannot tell you how many times I have seen this type of scenario play out in real life. Man
"A" is attracted to Woman "A," but Woman "A" is more attracted to Man "B" and just strings
Man "A" along until Man "B" makes himself available. Meanwhile, Man "A" will have
another woman (Woman "B") who is crazy over him, but he is not nearly as interested in
Woman "B" as he is in Woman "A."

Those scenarios never play out well. Never, ever become a woman's "rebound guy,"
especially if that woman is withholding sex from you and generally causing you to waste
time as well as your emotional investment..
#14 - Theresa Russell as "Catharine" in "Black Widow" (1989) Google Images
#14 - Theresa Russell as "Catharine" in "Black Widow"
(1989)
General premise of the movie:

A wealthy widow is being pursued by an FBI investigator due to the fact that all of her
previous husbands ended up dying in some mysterious fashion while she collected a portion
of each dead husband's wealth and possessions

Which of the six categories of 'women to avoid' does this female movie character fall
into? 1) Gold Digger / Social Climber 2) Misandrist

IMDb.com page for Black Widow

Commentary about this film and/or particular character: If you go back and read my
commentary for my #18 choice (Rooney Mara as "Emily" in Side Effects), then take the
character of Emily and multiply her disdain for men and manipulative tendencies times ten,
and you will have Actress Theresa Russell's character of Catharine in this film.

The story implies that Catharine does not even like men, and that she is actually a lesbian.
Each of her previous husbands has been either poisoned, or murdered in some type of other
"hard-to-detect" manner.

Most people would agree that being wealthy is always better than being poor, but if there is at
least one minor "benefit" to a man being poor is that he never has to worry about attracting
gold digger types or worry about a wife of his trying to murder him so that she can live off of
his wealth and/or his insurance policy.

#13 - Anne Hathaway as "Allison" in "Havoc" (2005)Google Images

#13 - Anne Hathaway as "Allison" in "Havoc" (2005)
General premise of the movie:

A group of high school students from Pacific Palisades, an affluent neighborhood in the Los
Angeles area, take a joy ride to Hollywood and soon end up in East L.A. where they
encounter some members of a hardcore Latin street gang
Which of the six categories of 'women to avoid' does this female movie character fall
into? Timewaster

IMDb.com page for Havoc

Commentary about this film and/or particular character: This film had some minor
"controversy" surrounding it, because two of the actresses from the film - Anne Hathaway
and Bijou Phillips - refused to promote the film due to the fact that the studio (New Line
Cinema) took away "final cut editing" privileges from the film's director, Barbara Kopple.

The subject of date-rape always has been, and always will be a delicate issue to discuss. For
women, the prevailing attitude is "no means no," even if their "no" comes after intercourse
has been initiated. Many men have criticized women who go back-and-forth between an
enthusiastic 'yes, let's have sex' to a stern, 'no, I changed my mind ... I now do not want to
have sex.'

***PLOT SPOILER BELOW***

Have you ever met middle class teenagers who THINK that they are "hip" and "streetwise?"
If so, this would describe Allison, Emily, and their high school crew.

Within the high school atmosphere of Pacific Palisades - a very affluent neighborhood in Los
Angeles near Malibu and Brentwood - these friends actually believe they are "street" because
they listen to gangsta rap music and love to cause trouble at school.

One weekend, while joy riding down Hollywood Boulevard, they soon find themselves on
the outskirts of the mean streets of East L.A., and they encounter some true street Latin
gangster types.

The Latin gangsters end up punking the upper middle class white boys, and interesting
enough, this ends up turning on Allison (Hathaway) and Emily (Phillips). They say, many
women love the "bad boy" types, and this film co-signs with that belief in a big way.

Next thing you know, Allison and Emily are repeatedly making visits to East L.A. to hang
out with a few gangsters, but the problem is, the gangsters are ready to get into the girls'
pants, but the girls are reluctant to "go all the way" with them.

One of the gangsters (Actor Freddy Rodriguez) eventually lets the girls know, "Either have
sex with us, or leave us alone." The girls are so intrigued and fascinated with these roughneck
types that one night, they more or less give the signal that they are finally down to have
intercourse.

Initially both girls are into it, but soon after Allison allows herself to get hot and bothered
while engaging in foreplay, she changes her mind minutes later and bows out of the bedroom
action. Even though Allison has exited the bedroom, her friend Emily is still in the room on
the verge of having sex with one of the gangsters.

Emily is down for one-on-one sex, but when two other gangsters try to abruptly join in on the
action (i.e., creating what is known as "running a train" or "gang bang" scenario), she has a
very adverse reaction to it, which causes Allison to come back into the room and take her
close friend out of an undesirable situation.

Later, instead of just leaving the incident as a "live and learn" lesson, Emily decides to accuse
the gangsters of date rape, and threatens to file formal changes with the police. Allison tries
to talk her out of it, but Emily is sticking to her story.

My thoughts? If you cannot stand the 'heat,' do not allow yourself to step foot in the kitchen.
Does any woman "deserve" to be raped or date raped? Hell no. I would never remotely
suggest such a thing.

That being said though, I think all women should make it clear to men if they are indeed
interested in having sex, and what type of sex they are down for. If the women have ANY
DOUBTS, then they should avoid sex altogether. Simple as that.

In my second book, Upfront and Straightforward: Let the Manipulative Game Players
Know What You're REALLY Thinking, I quote some lyrics from the late, great rapper Tupac
Shakur (a.k.a. "2Pac") and his song, I Get Around; In the song, at one point he says, "There's
a lot of real G's doin' time ... because a groupie hid the truth and told a lie" What he is
referring to is false or invalid date-rape charges toward men.

I believe all men should avoid interacting with women who come across as "c*ck teasers" or
who are wishy-washy with their sexual desires and interests. When it comes to (casual) sex,
men should only interact with women who are extremely enthusiastic about having sex with
them. Otherwise, leave the women alone. Games are for kids.

#12 - Demi Moore as "Meredith" in "Disclosure" (1994) Google Images

#12 - Demi Moore as "Meredith" in "Disclosure" (1994)
General premise of the movie:

A married computer expert crosses paths with his ex-girlfriend, who ends up aggressively
trying to have sex with him; after he rebuffs his former lover's advances, she sues him and his
company for sexual harassment

Which of the six categories of 'women to avoid' does this female movie character fall
into? Man Thief

IMDb.com page for Disclosure

Commentary about this film and/or particular character: If you are a man reading this,
have you ever had a woman come on to you sexually ... only to later give her friends or
relatives the impression that it was you who aggressively came on to her?

A good a number of men (including myself) have experienced this scenario with at least a
handful of women in their lives. Later, it becomes an issue of "your word versus her word"
(unless the interaction was audiotaped, videotaped, or witnessed by another human being).

Actress Demi Moore's character of Meredith in this film is a woman who is very career
driven, and not afraid to speak her mind. When it comes to connecting with men, she makes it
clear that she is not one to stand on the sidelines waiting to be "chosen" by a man of interest.
Her attitude is, "If I see a man I want to have sex with, I am going to pursue him and get him
to have sex with me."

This is exactly what she does with her ex-boyfriend Tom (Actor Michael Douglas). One
evening, after the workday has concluded, Meredith essentially attempts to date-rape Tom,
and for a moment - similar to Anne Hathaway's character of 'Allison' in Havoc - he gives in.
Minutes later, he regains his sense of self-control, and rebuffs Meredith's advances.

Bitter because she was rejected, Meredith later accuses Tom of sexual harassment and sues
him and his company. Then the remainder of the story unfolds from there.

The reality is, many women in today's society are just as sexually aggressive, if not MORE
aggressive, than many men are. In the last ten years or so, there have been increasing
incidents of women actually raping men.

More organizations need to realize that true "harassment" is representative

of repeated episodes of unwanted advances ... not just one. That applies to men and women.

#11 - Sanaa Lathan as "Andrea" in "The Family That Preys" (2008) Google Images
#11 - Sanaa Lathan as "Andrea" in "The Family That
Preys" (2008)
General premise of the movie:

A hard working mother tries to work through some challenges and episodes of adversity in
both her personal and professional life
Which of the six categories of 'women to avoid' does this female movie character fall
into? Liar / Cheater / Adulteress

IMDb.com page for The Family That Preys

Commentary about this film and/or particular character: There was a time when I
actually expressed criticisms toward Writer-Director Tyler Perry, because I felt like Perry
was always creating male characters with a big bag full of personality issues and character
flaws.

Well, with characters like Judith in Temptation and Andrea in The Family That Preys (as well
as Tasha Smith's character of Jennifer in Daddy's Little Girls), Perry has rendered my initial
criticism an invalid one.

Andrea (Actress Sanaa Lathan) is a piece of work, to say the least. She is married to a good
man (Actor Rockmond Dunbar), but not only is she cheating on her husband with her boss
(Actor Cole Hauser), but her son's father is her boss - not her husband. Enough said.

Even Andrea's own mother (Actress Alfre Woodard) does not approve of the manner in
which Andrea just totally disrespects and dogs out her husband.

Lesson learned? Never enter into a long-term relationship with a woman who has not proven
to you that she has genuine love for you, and totally respects you as a man.

#10 - Linda Fiorentino as "Bridget" in "The Last Seduction" (1994) Google Images
#10 - Linda Fiorentino as "Bridget" in "The Last
Seduction" (1994)
General premise of the movie:

A married woman with manipulative tendencies talks her physician husband into selling
medicinal cocaine to some drug dealers, and then later takes off with the profits from the sale;
she then moves to a new town and meets a new naive male target to help her with another
manipulative scheme of hers

Which of the six categories of 'women to avoid' does this female movie character fall
into? 1) Liar / Cheater / Adulteress 2) Misandrist
IMDb.com page for The Last Seduction

Commentary about this film and/or particular character: Actress Linda Fiorentino's
character of Bridget is somewhat similar to my #18 choice of Emily fromSide Effects and my
#14 choice of Catharine from Black Widow.

The main difference between Bridget and those two female characters is that Bridget does not
seem to have lesbian or bisexual tendencies like Emily and Catharine. Bridget loves to
manipulate men for her own self-serving motivations.

As already alluded to in the intro to this list, the reason why many women seem to always
easily have their way with unsuspecting men is because most men are visual creatures, and
place a high degree of emphasis on a pretty face, a cute smile, and a shapely figure.

If a satanic demon from Hell were to present themself to human males as a gorgeous woman
who oozed with sex appeal, that demon would be able to wreak havoc on society simply
because of how many single heterosexual men have been known to quickly fall under the
spell of an attractive, seductive woman.

The character of Bridget in this film was as close to a satanic demon as you will ever see
portrayed in movies.

#9 - Diane Franklin as "Karen" in "The Last American Virgin" (1982) Google Images
#9 - Diane Franklin as "Karen" in "The Last American
Virgin" (1982)
General premise of the movie:

A group of high school boys meet up with some high school girls at a party, and one of the
boys ends up having sex with one of the girls; Later, the girl becomes pregnant, but chooses
to have an abortion, and she is supported and consoled by one of the baby's father's best
friends who has fallen in love with her

Which of the six categories of 'women to avoid' does this female movie character fall
into? Timewaster

IMDb.com page for The Last American Virgin

Commentary about this film and/or particular character: The female character from this
film is very similar to my #15 choice of Michelle from Two Lovers.

Many naive men think if they come across as "nice," "sweet," "considerate," and empathetic
to a woman's problems, disappointments, and frustrations (with other men), that the woman
will reward them with romantic or sexual companionship.

Wrong.

Karen (Actress Diane Franklin) is a "good girl" in public, but behind closed doors, she has a
very uninhibited and even promiscuous side to her. At a party, she cheats on her boyfriend
with a new acquaintance named Rick (Actor Steve Antin) and the two have sex.

Later, once she gets pregnant with Rick's baby, Rick disses her and pretty much ignores her.
Rick even tries to claim that he is not sure that the baby is even his.

Enter Gary (Actor Lawrence Monoson) a.k.a. "Captain Save-a-Ho," who is one of Rick's best
friends. He feels sorry for Karen, and Karen begins to use Gary as a shoulder to cry on and an
empathetic listening ear.

Soon, Gary finds himself falling in love with Karen, and even gathers up enough money to
help Karen go through with her desired abortion.

***PLOT SPOILER BELOW***

The end of the film is not surprising, but if you have any empathy for "the nice guy who gets
dogged out in favor of the bad boy," the end of this film will just break your heart.

Even though Rick acted like a total jerk toward Karen once she got pregnant, at the end of the
movie, Karen is back with Rick, much to the shock and profound disappointment to Gary.
Just the look on Gary's face at the end of the movie leaves you almost feeling his pain.

As mentioned before, I personally love endings like this. If she would have ended up with
Gary for another "happily ever after" type Hollywood ending, I would have harshly criticized
the producers of this film. But, to their credit, they kept it real.

In real life, the proverbial "nice guy / sweet male friend" usually gets dogged out. Women
love those types of men as "play brothers" and "male girlfriends," but not as boyfriends or
casual lovers. If you believe otherwise, you will have some woman break your heart and
wake you up from your delusional fantasy world.
#8 [tie] - Sarah Michelle Gellar as "Kathryn" in "Cruel Intentions" (1999) and Glenn Close as
"Isabelle" in "Dangerous Liaisons" (1988)Google Images
#8 [tie] - Sarah Michelle Gellar as "Kathryn" in "Cruel
Intentions" (1999) and Glenn Close as "Isabelle" in
"Dangerous Liaisons" (1988)
General premise of each movie:

In both films, a master manipulator of both men and women challenges a man to prove to
them that he can seduce a woman and then break her heart, and if he does so, he will be
rewarded with the manipulator's sexual companionship

Which of the six categories of 'women to avoid' do these female movie characters fall
into? Timewaster

IMDb.com page for Cruel Intentions

IMDb.com page for Dangerous Liaisons

Commentary about these films and/or these particular characters: Cruel

Intentions and Dangerous Liaisons are essentially the same film. Cruel Intentions is simply
an updated, 20th Century version of the 18th Century-based Dangerous Liaisons.

In both films, you have a woman who is a master manipulator (Actress Sarah Michelle Gellar
as "Kathryn Merteuil" in Cruel Intentions and Actress Glenn Close as "Marquise Isabelle de
Merteuil" in Dangerous Liaisons) who has a man in their life that wants to have sex with
them really, really, really badly.

What happens in both films is the same: The manipulative woman challenges the man who is
horny for them to seduce an unsuspecting 'good girl' type woman (preferably a virgin) into
having sex with them, get the woman to fall in love with them, and then abruptly break their
heart. If the man accomplishes this challenge, his reward is that he gets to have sex with the
manipulator.

***PLOT SPOILER BELOW***

As you can predict, in both films, the guy does accomplish the challenge presented to him,
but in both films, the man (Actor Ryan Phillipe in Cruel Intentions and Actor John
Malkovich in Dangerous Liaisons) ends up regretting breaking the heart of a woman who had
truly fallen in love with them.

To add insult to injury, the manipulative woman in both scenarios does not satisfy the men
with the initially agreed upon 'reward' (that they would get to sleep with her).

What this movie proves is that some women (and men) tend to engage in manipulative head
games with others, and toy with other people's emotions, simply because they are bored and
want to entertain themselves.

Every man loves sex to one degree or another, but a man should never allow himself to want
to have sex with a woman so badly that he would allow a woman to propose a "If you do this
for me, I will have sex with you" scenario to him. Either a woman wants to have sex with
you ... or she does not. There is no "in-between."

If a woman is not 100% interested in having sex with you, leave her alone. Immediately.

#7 - Julia Roberts as "Anna" in "Closer" (2004) Google Images

#7 - Julia Roberts as "Anna" in "Closer" (2004)
General premise of the movie:

One man is attracted to two women: his new girlfriend and the wife of another man; the man
eventually has sex with the married woman, who ends confessing her infidelity to her
husband which severely throws him for a loop

Which of the six categories of 'women to avoid' does this female movie character fall
into? Liar / Cheater / Adulteress

IMDb.com page for Closer

Commentary about this film and/or particular character: I would rank Closer as one of
the best, most realistic romantic dramas that I have ever seen in my life. The scene where
Anna (Actress Julia Roberts) confesses to her husband Larry (Actor Clive Owen) that she has
cheated on him with Dan (Actor Jude Law) is worth watching the film alone.
We all have seen films where a woman was left broken hearted because her husband or
boyfriend cheated on them, but they do not produce too many films that display the raw
emotion of a man who feels betrayed and humiliated.

Normally, Actress Julia Roberts chooses to play characters that you cannot help but to love
and adore, but in this film, you will find yourself despising her character for breaking her
husband's heart. At one point, even the character herself says, "I am disgusting."

Actor Clive Owen was actually nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of Larry, and he won
a Golden Globe award for the same role. After viewing this film, you will clearly see why he
deserved the accolades he received.

#6 - Glenn Close as "Alex" in "Fatal Attraction" (1987) Google Images

#6 - Glenn Close as "Alex" in "Fatal Attraction" (1987)
General premise of the movie:

A married men gives in to the temptation of a casual weekend fling with a woman who,
unbeknownst to him, suffers fromBorderline Personality Disorder, and when he tries to
break things off with her, she informs him that she is pregnant and begins stalking him

Which of the six categories of 'women to avoid' does this female movie character fall
into? 1) Man Thief 2) Drama Queen

IMDb.com page for Fatal Attraction

Commentary about this film and/or particular character: Most of the female movie
characters who I have selected for this list would represent the types of women that men
should avoid marrying or maintaining as a long-term girlfriend.

The character of Alex Forrest (played extraordinarily well by talented actress Glenn Close)
would be a prime example of why you should spend time getting to better know a woman's
personality and emotional disposition even before you engage in a casual one-night stand or
weekend fling. To put it rather bluntly, Alex was one crazy ass bitch.

When a woman suffers from some degree of mental illness or suffers from the negative
effects of a diagnosed personality disorder, a man will usually not be able to detect this
within the first 24-72 hours after meeting that woman. The symptoms of such ailments
usually do not reveal themselves until weeks, months, or sometimes years later.
As a friend once told me, "If people call you crazy ... and you are consciously aware of the
fact that you are crazy .... then nine times out of ten, you are probably not crazy. Truly crazy
people do not fully realize that they are crazy. And that is what makes them so scary."

This film acts as a cautionary tale for men - and particularly married men - who are tempted
to cheat on their wives for one night or one weekend, believing that they can just sweep the
one-time tryst under the rug. That is what Dan (Actor Michael Douglas) thought he could do,
and boy oh boy was he wrong.

#5 - Sharon Stone as "Ginger" in "Casino" (1995) Google Images

#5 - Sharon Stone as "Ginger" in "Casino" (1995)
General premise of the movie:

A woman married to a mobster and casino owner causes drama and ill feelings between her
husband and his best friend and business partner

Which of the six categories of 'women to avoid' does this female movie character fall
into? 1) Liar / Cheater / Adulteress 2) Drama Queen

IMDb.com page for Casino

Commentary about this film and/or particular character: Cheating and adultery is wrong
any way you examine it. That being said, it is one thing for a woman to cheat on her
boyfriend or husband with a man who is not acquainted with her companion, but it is a totally
different animal when a woman is cheating on her boyfriend or husband with her spouse or
companion's brother, best friend, or other close male acquaintance (The 1999 romantic
comedy, The Best Man with actors Morris Chestnut and Taye Diggs dealt with this theme).

Actress Sharon Stone plays Ginger, and Ginger almost makes my #11 choice (Andrea
from The Family That Preys) look like a Girl Scout. Ginger is married to Sam (Actor Robert
DeNiro), but she is still hung up on her former pimp Lester (Actor James Wood) as well as
engaging in an extramarital affair with her husband's best friend and business partner Nicky
(Actor Joe Pesci).

At one point in the film, Ginger even goes as far as to tie up her own daughter to her bed so
that she can go out partying.
The reoccurring message of many of these films and characters? Just because a woman has
the looks of a "trophy wife," and the sex appeal of a seasoned porn star, does not mean you
should ignore the wide array of flaws and weaknesses in that woman's personality, character,
integrity, and overall behavior. As that woman's husband or boyfriend, you will surely regret
it in the long run.

#4 - Jessica Walter as "Evelyn" in "Play Misty for Me" (1971)Google Images

#4 - Jessica Walter as "Evelyn" in "Play Misty for Me"
(1971)
General premise of the movie:

A popular radio disc jockey in California engages in what he thinks will be just another one-
night stand with one of his radio show groupies, but this particular woman reveals herself to
be emotionally unstable and refuses to leave him alone

Which of the six categories of 'women to avoid' does this female movie character fall
into? 1) Drama Queen 2) Man Thief

IMDb.com page for Play Misty for Me

Commentary about this film and/or particular character: This film, and the film Fatal
Attraction have almost the same exact story plots. It was even rumored that the producers
for Fatal Attraction got the idea for their film from watching Play Misty for Me.

The one major difference between the two films is that the male protagonist in Fatal
Attraction is married, and initially very reluctant to cheat on his wife. In Play Misty for Me,
Dave (Actor Clint Eastwood) is a bachelor who has an on-again, off-again relationship with
his steady girlfriend (Actress Donna Mills).

Evelyn (played brilliantly by Actress Jessica Walter) is a fan of Dave's popular radio show,
and ends up crossing paths with him at a local bar. Dave realizes that she is a 'groupie' of his,
and he decides to take advantage of the fact that she is fascinated with him, and he decides to
have sex with her with no hesitation.
One of the reasons why I wrote my first book, Mode One: Let the Women Know What
You're REALLY Thinking, was to encourage single heterosexual men to always make it
crystal clear to women that all they want is short-term, non-monogamous 'casual' sex if
indeed that is their objective.

If Dave made one mistake in this film, it would be that he did not make it specifically clear to
Evelyn that he was just looking for a one-time episode of enjoyable sex (given that she was
crazy, it probably would not have mattered even if he did). Evelyn, like many women in real
life, confuses and misinterprets his desire for casual sex with her as being representative of a
genuine romantic interest in her. Soon, Evelyn begins behaving as though she is Dave's new
girlfriend.

The remainder of the film unfolds from there.

As mentioned in a number of my articles, women have a hormone called oxytocin that causes
women to become emotionally attached to a male sex partner after multiple episodes of
enjoyable, satisfying orgasms with him.

I do not condone a woman becoming a 'stalker' with any man, but in some women's partial
defense, many men toy with women's emotions, and again, do not make it specifically clear
that they are just looking for short-term non-monogamous sex rather than long-term
monogamous sex.

Bottom line, when a woman comes running at you with a knife in her hand, do not say that I
did not warn you.

#3 - Evan Rachel Wood as "Kimberly" in "Pretty Persuasion" (2005) Google Images

#3 - Evan Rachel Wood as "Kimberly" in "Pretty
Persuasion" (2005)
General premise of the movie:

A high school student who dreams of being a Hollywood actress and loves to be the center of
attention falsely accuses her drama teacher of sexual harassment

Which of the six categories of 'women to avoid' does this female movie character fall
into? Drama Queen
IMDb.com page for Pretty Persuasion

Commentary about this particular character: This film is more of a dark comedy than a
drama, so there are lot of elements of both the film in general and the individual characters
that you cannot take "too" seriously.

That being said though, Actress Evan Rachel Wood portrays her character of Kimberly as
one of the most manipulative female high school students you could ever come into contact
with.

Not only is Kimberly good at manipulating men, she is even effective at manipulating other
girls. In the film, she manipulates two of her best girlfriends to the highest degree. Kimberly's
manipulative ways will leave you shaking your head at times.

Here is the deal: Both men and women can be and are manipulative. The difference is, men
almost always have sex (and more specifically, casual sex) as their endgame (which makes
men's manipulations much more predictable).

Women on the other hand really do not need to manipulate men for sex (unless the man is
married or otherwise romantically involved). All they have to do is offer sex, and men will
usually take it. Women primarily manipulate men for flattering attention, entertaining social
companionship, financial favors, non-financial favors, and someone to gossip with and vent
with.

Kimberly LOVES to be the center of attention. Many women do. I always say, many women
value flattering attention and entertaining conversation in the same way that most men value
blowjobs and hand jobs.

The thing you need to remember always is this: The more you go out of your way to
manipulate others, the more you set yourself up to be potentially manipulated yourself when
you cross paths with someone who is just as manipulative, if not more manipulative, than you
are.

#2 - Nicole Kidman as "Suzanne" in "To Die For" (1995)Google Images

#2 - Nicole Kidman as "Suzanne" in "To Die For" (1995)
General premise of the movie:
A woman who very badly wants to climb the ladder in the world of network television news
is willing to do anything to achieve her goals, even if it means killing her own husband

Which of the six categories of 'women to avoid' does this female movie character fall
into? 1) Gold Digger / Social Climber 2) Liar / Cheater / Adulteress

IMDb.com page for To Die For

Commentary about this film and/or particular character: If you are a woman reading
this, have you ever wanted a job or career position SO BAD that you felt like you would do
anything to get it? If you are a man reading this, have you ever wanted to date a woman or
have sex with a woman SO BAD that you would do anything that woman asks of you?

This film highlights both angles mentioned above.

Suzanne (Actress Nicole Kidman, who won a Golden Globe award for her performance)
wants to be a successful network television news anchor very, very badly. Problems arise
when her husband Larry (Matt Dillon) wants her to put less emphasis on her career, and
begin concentrating on being a stay-at-home wife and mother to future children.

This does not sit well with Suzanne at all, so she begins plotting to have her husband killed (I
know some are saying, "Why not just divorce him?? Why do you have to kill him??" I
agree!). Later, she seduces three teenagers (two boys and one girl) into the idea of killing her
husband by lying to them and giving them the impression that her husband has been
physically and emotionally abusive toward her.

The film is actually loosely based on the real life story of Pamela Smart.

I am all for a woman being career-focused, but when a woman is so career driven that she
looks at the idea of being a potential mother to children as a hindrance, that is a major red
flag.

Many married men over the years have reported having wives like this. Women who initially
gave the men the impression that they wanted to have one or more children and raise a
family, but a year or two into the marriage, they made it clear that pursuing their career was
far more important than being a stay-at-home mom and wife.

Women like this should never aspire to be married. Simple. Or, only marry men who have
absolutely no desire for children. In today's society, you actually now have men who are stay-
at-home dads (i.e., "house husbands") and they take care of the children while their wives are
the career-oriented ones and the breadwinners. If that works out for those men and their
respective wives, more power to them.
#1 - Kathleen Turner as "Matty" in "Body Heat" (1981) Google Images
#1 - Kathleen Turner as "Matty" in "Body Heat" (1981)
General premise of the movie:

A married woman no longer wants to be with her husband, but she does want the quality
lifestyle that his wealth provides for her; soon, she has an affair with a lawyer from a small
town in Florida, and convinces him to help her do away with her husband

Which of the six categories of 'women to avoid' does this female movie character fall
into? 1) Gold Digger / Social Climber 2) Liar / Cheater / Adulteress

IMDb.com page for Body Heat

Commentary about this film and/or particular character: Of all of the films I have ever
viewed in my adult life that center on a woman manipulating a man for self-serving
motivations, this film undoubtedly ranks as my number one choice.

Men, repeat after me: "Some women may love male companionship, but they love wealth and
material possessions even more." Say it again. Say it again. Say it two hundred more times
until that thought sinks in deeply.

If you give some women the choice between dating a broke, unemployed man that they truly
love or dating a multimillionaire who annoys them or bores them, I guarantee you that no less
than forty percent of the women in this country would choose the multimillionaire.

The ideal situation for women like this is to marry the rich guy, and cheat on him with the
poor guy. Or, in the case of Matty (Actress Kathleen Turner), have the not-poor-but-not-rich-
either guy murder your husband and you keep the rich guy's wealth.

I remember a line from the 1987 film, Wall Street, when Actress Daryl Hannah tells Actor
Charlie Sheen, "You will find that it is worse to have had wealth ... and lost it ... than to have
never had it at all." In other words, for many people in society, the thought of going from
being poor to rich - and back to being poor again - is more terrifying than being poor your
entire life.

That is essentially all you need to know about the character of Matty. She loves men and she
loves good sex, but make no mistake ... she loves money and an upscale lifestyle more than
the companionship of ANY man.
***PLOT SPOILER BELOW***

If you are a man, it is one thing to get 'played' to the point where a woman's manipulation of
you leaves you with a bruised ego or hurt feelings. What about being played to the point that
you end up going to prison for a murder that you did not (knowingly) commit?

This is what happens in this film with the character of Ned (Actor William Hurt). Throughout
the entire film, he thought that Matty actually wanted to be with him. You know ... happily
ever after, and all that lovey-dovey corny stuff. Uhm ... no. Matty liked Ned, and she liked
having sex with Ned, but given a choice between having wealth and no Ned, or Ned and no
wealth, Matty chose the former rather than the latter.

In the Christian Bible, it says, "The love of money is the root of all evil." What that means for
men is, when you meet a woman who loves money more than male companionship, you can
assume that this woman is inherently "evil" (or at least, selfish and highly materialistic). As a
woman once said to me, "I can be broke all by myself. I don't need a man in my life to be
broke."

This film is must-see film for men. You will learn that in the short-run, interacting with a
woman with a beautiful face and a high degree of sex appeal can be exciting, but in the long-
run - if that woman is a master manipulator - she will leave your psyche and life in total
shambles.
A strong desire for male
attention leads many
women into a promiscuous
lifestyle
There is a saying among many men and women that goes something like, "Women
give sex to men in order receive love and attention, and men give women love and
attention in order to receive sex." This adage can in no way be considered valid and
true for all men and women, but for a percentage of the membership of each
gender ... this attitude is very valid.

On the recommendation of a reader of mine, I recently watched a film by Israeli

Director Johnathan Gurfinkel entitled S#x Acts (the film, which has English
subtitles; is divided into six acts which are mostly about sex, so that is why the # sign
is between the "S" and the "x" meaning it could be 'Six Acts' or 'Sex Acts').

The film is excellent in its subtle, but raw realism. Unlike most movies with a similar
theme, this film does not go out of its way to overly demonize the male characters
who are seemingly 'taking advantage' of a naive, 'innocent victim' female type. On
the flip side, the movie also does not try to give you the impression that the young
lady is some out-of-control 'sex addict' who just cannot get enough sex (there is
another foreign film coming out with the latter storyline, and it is appropriately
titled, Nymphomaniac).

The vast majority of women who are very promiscuous with men typically fall into two
categories: 1) Those women who just genuinely love having sex regularly with a
wide variety of male partners, and 2) those women who do not necessarily have an
extremely insatiable libido or an incorrigible desire for multiple sex partners, but
rather their issue is that they cannot handle being indefinitely ignored by men;
consequently, they turn to providing men with sexual satisfaction as a means of
keeping the men motivated to satisfy their desperate, irresistible need (or "fix") for
flattering attention from men.

Gili (Actress Sivan Levy), the main character in S#x Acts, is a prime example of a
woman in the second category. She has just moved into a new neighborhood, and
has transferred from one high school to a new one. Gili does not have many friends,
but at the start of the film, she is acquainted with at least two or three guys at her
new school. It is obvious that the young lady is bored with her home life (you get the
sense that she and her mother do not get along too well, and her father spends most
of his time working or sleeping), so she constantly seeks out attention from her male
friends and acquaintances.
I do not want to elaborate too much more or give away too many plot 'spoilers,' but
let's just say that Gili ends up being 'shared' and/or 'passed around' sexually by a
number of the high school male friends involved in the story.

Less than a month ago, I posted a YouTube video on my Facebook page of

Actress Leah Remini telling television talk show Host Arsenio Hall about a time in
the late 1980s or early 1990s when she and two girlfriends got invited to an after-
party at Actor/Comedian Eddie Murphy's house, only to later have Eddie's security
personnel kick her and her two friends out of the party. What was their "crime?" They
were not down to have sex with Eddie, Arsenio, or their 'crew,' so they got
dismissed.

A number of my female Facebook friends were shocked at the gesture. They couldn't
believe that a woman would get kicked out of a party simply because she was not
down for a one-night stand or weekend fling. I lightheartedly accused many of these
same female Facebook friends of being "very naive" about how men are, and how
they think. One female friend expressed that she did not realize that the desire for
sex was men's primary motivation for wanting to share her company until she was in
her mid-thirties.

That tells me one of two things: Either this woman did not interact with many men -
or conversely - she interacted with a lot of men who were dishonest and
disingenuous with her about their true desires, interests, intentions, and motivations.

After Steve Harvey had his book, Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man published, he
said that some women got upset with him because they believed he was attempting
to persuade them to behave more like men than women. In his defense, Harvey said
that most of his female critics misunderstood his intentions. Harvey was not trying to
get women to "act like men," but rather he was trying to encourage women to fully
understand the manner in which most men think.

Arguably, the first step to understanding one of the primary differences between how
women generally think and how men generally think is related to their desire for
flattering attention from the opposite sex. As I point out emphatically in my book, The
Possibility of Sex: How Naive and Lustful Men are Manipulated by Women
Regularly, it comes down to this:

- Many women love receiving flattering attention from men PERIOD. Regardless of
whether it is a man who they are attracted to romantically and/or sexually, or even if
it is a guy who they have nothing more than just a purely platonic interest in, many
women want flattering attention from men. If nothing else, women love it when men
acknowledge their beauty and their sex appeal, and make them feel desirable;

- The vast majority of men could care less about receiving flattering attention from
women if that attention is not accompanied with sex. Even the aforementioned
Harvey said himself many times, "No man wants to be 'just friends' with a (single)
woman who they find attractive or sexy. Even if the man says he's not looking for
sex, he is." Rare 'exceptions' aside, I generally agree with him. Purely platonic
friendships with (single) members of the opposite sex are not nearly as appealing for
the average man as they are for many women.
This is why I loved the harsh realism of the film S#x Acts. The men in this film did not
want to be around Gili unless she was going to give them a blowjob, a hand job, or
engage in intercourse with them. Otherwise, they did not want anything to do with
her.

Some women reading this will probably say, "I would never, ever allow men to
disrespect me like that, and treat me like their promiscuous sex toy or personal slut.
My level of self-respect and self-esteem is too high for that." Many of the women who
express that attitude will be sincere about it, while a few others willreally be saying,
"I would not go as far as to actually have sex with those guys ... but I would make
those men think that the possibility of sex was right around the corner in order to
keep them motivated to continue to be my friend and give me the attention I want" (in
other words, they would rather be labeled a "c*ck teaser" than a "slut," if given a
choice between the two).

I remember once while working in Chicago, I would commute back and forth from
Northwest Indiana to Chicago on a train called The South Shore Commuter Line.
There was this one woman who would sit next to me quite frequently, and she
always would wear very form fitting outfits or very short, tight skirts and dresses. The
first few times we sat together, I would usually compliment her various outfits. I
would say, "Nice dress" or "That outfit is very sexy." She would smile, we would chat
a bit, and then just relax and enjoy the train ride.

Weeks later, once my compliments toward her began to diminish, I noticed a change
in her behavior toward me. For example, one evening, we were traveling from
Chicago back to Northwest Indiana, and I did not compliment her at all. All I said to
her was, "Hey .. how's it going?" Next thing I know, this woman started fidgeting with
her hands and legs like CRAZY. Her whole body language had a tone of "I am very
agitated right now," but initially, she did not say anything. Then finally, she
says, "Well?!?" I responded, "Well ... what?" She glared at me and said, "Aren't you
going to say anything about my outfit?? You have not said a word about my outfit!!"

She was not being lighthearted or facetious at all. She was dead serious. It truly
bothered her that I had not offered some sort of flattering comment about her outfit.
Just to be 'playfully mean,' I made her 'beg' me for a compliment. She literally did.
Later on, she ended up confessing what I slowly came to know about many women
in general. She said, "I hate to put on make-up, fix my hair, and wear something
really cute and sexy and not have a man acknowledge how I am looking. I can't
stand that. I remember once, I went to a nightclub, and did not receive one
compliment from a guy that particular night, and it ruined my whole night. I went
home feeling very, very frustrated. It was hard for me to go to sleep because I was
so mad."

Again .... this is a prime example of how men and women are totally different.

I cannot remember one time in my life where a man I knew visited a popular
nightclub, and later on, said, "Man Alan, I'm pissed. Not one woman complimented
me on my slacks, my shirt, my shoes, my sport coat, or my wristwatch. Not one. This
totally ticks me off. That messed up my whole night." 99.9% chance, you would
never, ever hear any man utter those words.
As I say in The Possibility of Sex - for men ... "attention + sex" is a "package deal."
Men usually want flattering attention from women ONLY if it is going to be
accompanied by, or followed up with sex. Flattering attention alone does very little if
anything for a man. Even a man with a huge ego.

Speaking of egos ... earlier this year, I interviewed a New York Times book author by
the name of Daniel Bergner. In Bergner's best-selling book, What Do Women
Want, he briefly talks about how women can often times become egotistically
satisfied with flattering attention, and flattering attention alone - unlike men.

In the book, Bergner makes the point that many women get off on simply knowing
that a man wants to fu** them. They do not actually have to engage in the act of sex
in order to experience satisfaction. In the book, Bergner points out that for many
women, "being desired (by men) is the orgasm."

Here would be my takeaways from this article:

1) There is a difference between "wanting" attention or "liking" attention versus being

"addicted" to flattering attention. There are many women that cannot go a full
week ... or even a full 24 hours ... without receiving some sort of flattering attention
from men;

2) If you are a woman, do not assume that men value flattering attention as much as
you do. 99% of them do not. For women, "I'll give you attention if you give me
attention" seems like a fair, even trade. For the average single heterosexual male,
attention without sex means jack;

3) If you want flattering attention from a man who you have no interest in dating or
having sex with, make that straightforwardly clear to him. Many women like to string
guys along and 'c*ck tease' men, and then turn around and label men "jerks" and
"a**holes" when those men start becoming more and more sexually aggressive. Do
not invite 'drama' that you cannot diffuse.

If you had one hundred people - let's say sixty women and forty men - watch S#x
Acts, I would be willing to bet money that just about all of the women and even a
good number of the men would leave the theater with nothing but harsh criticisms of
the teenage boys in the film. "Disgusting." "I can't believe how badly they
disrespected that young girl." "They treated her like she was some sort of street
prostitute." Etc., etc., etc.

My attitude is this: if a man only wants sex from a woman - and he makes that
straightforwardly clear to the woman before having sex with her - then I have no
criticisms of that man whatsoever. At that point, the woman can reciprocate his
sexual desires and interests, or she can reject them. End of story. I only have
criticisms of men (whether they are 13 or 63) who lead women on to believe that
they want a relationship that involves something much more than just sex, when they
know deep-down that all they want to do is exchange orgasms for a few days or a
few weeks and then call it quits.
The teenage boys in the film S#x Acts never gave Gili the misleading impression that
they wanted more than just sex.

All men - if they are single and heterosexual - want sex from women. If you are one
of those self-proclaimed "naive" women, then write that down and repeat it to
yourself regularly. Some men want long-term monogamous sex while other men
want long-term non-monogamous sex. A few men want short-term monogamous sex
while many other men want short-term non-monogamous 'casual' sex. Regardless of
the specific type of sex they want, all men want sex from a woman who they find
physically attractive and sexually appealing.

Think about it. Think of a guy you know who always makes it straightforwardly clear
to women that the #1 thing on his mind is having sex. Does that guy have a lot of
problems and 'drama' with women? My prediction would be that he does not. The
women he interacts with are either going to reciprocate his desires or reject them.

Similarly, think of a woman you know who always makes it straightforwardly clear to
men that she is either down to have sex with that particular guy, or that she is not
down. Does that woman have a lot of problems and 'drama' with men? I seriously
doubt it. Men love and respect women who are upfront and straightforwardly honest
about their sexual desires and interests - or lack therof.

Men who mislead and manipulate women tend to experience many problems with
women and drama.

Women who mislead and manipulate men tend to experience many problems with
men and drama.

Men who offer 'love' and flattering attention to women in order to get sex ... but
subsequently do not get the sex that they hoped for ... end up feeling angry,
frustrated and bitter toward women.

Women who offer sex to men in order to receive loving and flattering attention ... but
later on realize the guy just wanted to 'hit it and quit it' ... end up feeling angry,
frustrated and bitter toward men.

Bottom line, if you are currently having sex with multiple men simply because you
want to - more power to you. Own your sexuality. But if you are having sex with
multiple men (or worse, giving men the misleading impression that you want to have
sex with them when in actuality you do not) primarily for the sake of motivating those
men to give you regular doses of flattering attention, you are going to regret it sooner
rather than later. Trust me on that.

Ladies ... not sure of a man's true intentions? Wondering if this man truly enjoys
being 'just friends' with you and giving you a boat load of flattering attention - or is he
really just trying to get in your pants? Be bold and ask him. Anytime a man appears
to be bored with your conversation, ask him, "Do you really want me to continue with
my story about how my sister's dog got lost ... or would you rather I just shut up and
give you a blowjob?"
I think we all know the response to that question.
'Her' review: 10 talking
points from Spike Jonze's
view of 21st Century dating
Her
Rating:
Star
Star
Star
Star
Star

One of my favorite R&B songs from the 1980s was a tune entitled, Computer Love.
The former hit song was performed by Zapp and Roger. The song was very smooth
and rhythmic. The lyrics were not too detailed or profound, but it was the first song
that I could remember that involved talk about 'love' and 'computers' in the same
song. At least a thirty second sample should have been used somewhere in Spike
Jonze's new romantic film entitled, Her just for added spice and effect.

Speaking of the 1980s, I remember watching a film about a woman who falls in love
with an alien. The movie was titled, Starman, and it starred Actor Jeff Bridges and
Actress Karen Allen. Bridges actually earned an Oscar nomination for his role as
the alien who not only looked human in its form, but more specifically, the alien
actually resembled the female lead's (Allen) recently deceased husband in the story.

I remember prior to watching the film, I had an attitude of, "No way will I find it
'believable' for a woman to fall in love with an alien species ... even if the alien looks
like her deceased husband." Director John Carpenter ended up proving me wrong. I
will confess ... I actually got choked up at the end of that film. The execution of that
story was excellent.

I will give similar props to Writer / Director Spike Jonze for his new comedy-
drama, Her. Also, I have to give kudos to Casting Directors Cassandra Kulukundis
and Ellen Lewis, in addition to Jonze. The only thing that really makes this story
work, and seem reasonably believable, is because of the exceptional casting.Amy
Adams, Scarlett Johansson, and Joaquin Phoenix provide stellar performances in
this very quirky film that should easily be considered one of the year's top ten best
films.

The story centers on Theodore Twombly (Phoenix), a man who is going through the
final stages of a painful divorce from his soon-to-be ex-wife, Catherine
(Actress Rooney Mara). One day, after leaving work for the day (Theodore's job is to
write letters for men and women who are not good at expressing themselves to their
family members or significant others), Theodore passes an exhibit for a new
computer operating system that is advertised as being intuitive and thoughtful like a
human. It even communicates with the owner of the operating system (OS1) with a
very human-like voice (the voice of Johansson).

Soon, Theodore begins to develop an 'emotional bond' with his operating system,
and he begins to treat OS1 as if it were his girlfriend. Now on-paper ... the premise
sounds absolutely ridiculous. Particularly for the average male moviegoer. But -
similar to the aforementioned Starman - Jonze does an excellent job making the
'unbelievable' seem believable. In some ways, I would refer to Her as "Starman
meets Blue Valentine."

I do not want to discuss too many of the story's plot points in specific detail, because
I do not want to give away too many spoilers for those who have yet to see the
movie (but be warned: there are two or three 'minor' and general "spoilers" below). I
will touch on a few of the scenes that provoked either a) an interesting observation
about modern day dating and relationships, and/or b) a question for you - the reader
- to ponder as we progress further into the 21st Century.

1) Have you ever engaged in phone sex or cyber-sex with a man or woman
without knowing what they look like, or anything about their background?

Comment: If the answer is 'yes,' then you will be able to totally relate to the
personality quirks of Theodore Twombly very well. If the answer is 'no,' his character
as well as the film in general is probably going to seem a wee bit 'weird,' 'eccentric,'
or even 'strange' to you.

Side note: Kristen Wiig, of NBC's Saturday Night Live fame and the writer and
star of the huge box-office hit, Bridesmaids, has an absolutely hilarious voice-
cameo as one of Theodore's anonymous phone sex partners.

2) Can a human being develop strong emotional feelings for a non-human

and/or an inanimate object?

Comment: Sure. I know men who literally cried when their favorite car got totally
destroyed in an accident, or simply stopped working because of engine failure and/or
transmission failure. Similarly, many women cry when their favorite dog or cat
passes away.

When my Sony PlayStation 2 stopped working back in 2007, I was dejected for
about a week. Okay, okay ... I am lying. Make that three weeks.

3) How much time do you spend per day, on average, actively using your
desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet, and/or smartphone? How would
you react if one or more of those devices communicated with you with the
(sexy) voice of a man or woman?

Comment: In this day and age, human beings and their technological devices are
almost inseparable. Many men and women have probably gone a number of days
without the romantic and/or sexual companionship of another human being, but it's
doubtful if anyone in today's society goes more than 24-36 hours without using their
desktop computer, laptop, tablet, or smartphone.

Just think about if those devices included the voice of a real human man or woman (I
am not talking about a computerized-sounding voice like the iPhone's popular 'Siri'
feature; but I am referring to a voice that actually sounded like you were talking to
another person over-the-phone). My prediction is that many of us would become
'addicted' to conversing with our own devices.

4) At the risk of generalizing, the vast majority of men look at love and sex as
two totally different entities; Consequently, it is very believable for a man to be
'in love' with his computer's operating system, even though that computer
could never satisfy his physical or sexual needs.

Comment: There have been at least four or five articles that I have written for this
column where I highlighted the difference between how men and women view the
concept of "being in love." For many men, the thought of being in love, and the
thought of satisfying their sexual urges is like apples and oranges. Conversely, for
many women, being in love and enjoying themselves sexually with a man is like
apples and apple juice or like oranges and orange juice.

I have conversed with many women who flat out conveyed to me that it is extremely
challenging for them to open up to a man sexually if they do not feel like they are in
love with that guy. On the other hand, the vast majority of men could have sex with a
woman two hundred times and never, ever feel like he is "falling in love" with that
woman.

As mentioned in my article on The Madonna / Whore Complex, the first and most
profound relationship any man has with a woman is usually with his mother
(dysfunctional relationships excluded, of course). A man's mother wiped his dirty
behind as a toddler, bathed him, nurtured him, encouraged him, supported him,
cooked for him, financially supported him, and really did not care about how he
looked or what type of car he drove. For many men, that is their definition of 'love,'
even if that is not at all representative of romantic or sexual love. That is
unconditional love.

When a man thinks about a woman loving him ... truly loving him with no underlying
agenda or motive ... there is a greater than fifty percent chance that he is going to
think about how much love was shown to him by his mother. Because there is no sex
involved with that relationship (dysfunctional and incestuous exceptions excluded),
most men tend to develop the attitude that "sex is sex ... and love is love." In most
men's minds, the two concepts are nowhere near being synonymous with one
another.

Which leads me back to the film. Even if you take away the possibility of Theodore
having sex with the computer (which we all know could never happen), "Samantha"
(the name OS1 gave herself) is still very encouraging, nurturing, supportive, and
non-materialistic. Samantha never says, "You're not handsome enough for me," or
"You don't make enough money for me," or "Your penis is not big enough for me," or
"You are not as educated as I would like you to be." What man - particularly one with
self-esteem or confidence problems - would NOT fall in love with a woman (ooops! I
meant computer) like Samantha? Men generally fall in love with women who are
extremely loyal and supportive - the "ride or die" type chick.

When you watch the film, you will see that Samantha does have her flaws ... but
being totally superficial or materialistic is not one of them. Just like most men's
mothers.

5) Is there ever any benefit to bringing 'emotional baggage' from a past

relationship into a new relationship?

Comment: Obviously, that is a rhetorical question. The reality is, many men and
women tend to make that mistake. This is the first mistake that Theodore makes with
Samantha. Theodore is still not completely over his soon-to-be ex-wife. Samantha
can sense that. On the flip side, Samantha has no memory of a 'past relationship.'
So she has no fears, doubts, insecurities, or 'baggage.' At least, not yet.

6) Women love having your full, undivided attention

Comment: As I mentioned in my very last article, if there is one thing that women
want just as much if not more than money and sex from a man, it is flattering
attention and entertaining social companionship. Even the OS1 named Samantha
wants Theodore to pay her attention. Samantha loves listening to Theodore vent,
explain, and entertain ... but she wants to vent, explain, and entertain too from time
to time.

In other words, after a while, Samantha starts behaving like a real (human) woman.

7) Would you be motivated to remain in a relationship if your degree of

personal growth has far exceeded the personal growth of your spouse or
significant other?

Comment: There is a common saying that everyone comes into our life for a "reason,
a season, or a lifetime." There are probably a few people in your life that you used to
feel very close to (either romantically, sexually or platonically) that you no longer feel
compatible with.

Many marriages end because the wife has evolved and grown intellectually and
emotionally ... but the husband has remained the same as he was since Day One of
the relationship (or vice versa). We as human beings are not the same at 18 years of
age as we were at 8 years of age, and generally speaking, no human should be the
same person at 38 years of age that he or she was at 18 years of age.

One problem that arises between Samantha and Theodore is that Samantha's
"mind" or "conscience" is evolving at a much faster pace than Theodore's is.
Actually, exponentially faster. Samantha is capable of absorbing knowledge and
wisdom in a matter of seconds or minutes that it would take the average human
being decades to comprehend.
8) For those heavily connected to modern technology, the days of maintaining
a totally "private" and "discreet" life are slowly but surely diminishing

Comment: There are some who say the day is going to come when if you go out on
a 'blind date,' you will be able to simply put that person's name in a computer app
("Google Date" maybe?), and a significant amount of information is going to be
displayed about that person.

Because Samantha was connected to the information highway, she knew much
about Theodore within a matter of minutes. There was not too much he was able to
hide about himself and his past from her.

9) Even in a large city with millions of people, a man or a woman could easily
find themselves feeling lonely and disconnected from people

Comment: Many people make the mistake of assuming that the only men or women
who get lonely are those who have only a handful of friends, those who are
extremely shy and introverted, and/or those who live in very small towns with small
populations.

Not true. Right now, there is a certain percentage of charismatic and gregarious men
and women living in cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, or New York who spend most
of their evenings and weekends by themselves. Or, if not by themselves, they may
share the company of a handful of purely platonic friends on a regular or semi-
regular basis.

Even though in today's society, you have online matchmaking services and social
networking sites, many men and women are still having a very challenging time
genuinely connecting with others romantically and/or sexually.

10) Which is more important in a marriage or long-term romantic relationship:

a) how loyal, considerate, and trustworthy your companion is as a true friend?
b) how many pleasurable orgasms your companion helps you experience? c)
how much your companion contributes to improving or maintaining your
quality of life? d) how many hours per day your companion gives you their full,
undivided attention?

Comment: In the 1950s and prior, many in society sought to connect with would-be
spouses and romantic companions who would provide them with a + b + c + d.

In today's world, that is becoming more and more challenging. In 2014, consider
yourself extremely fortunate to find a long-term romantic partner that provides you
with simply a + b, a + c, or b + d. I know at least a few women who have at least one
man who satisfies the needs of "a," "b," "c," and "d" individually for them.

For example, in the film Her, Amy (Actress Amy Adams) provides Theodore with the
"a" component, and occasionally the "d" component, but not much else, which is why
the two are not romantically or sexually involved.
That is the ultimate challenge for men and women. Most men either want a
relationship with a woman that is both sexual and non-sexual, or if they can't have
both, they will settle for a relationship that is strictly sexual. With the vast majority of
women, they are both similar, but yet different. Most women also ideally want a
partner who they can enjoy their companionship both sexually and non-sexually, but
if they cannot have both, they will usually settle for a purely platonic friendship with a
man.

Bottom line, this is why many men are known for having their "main woman," and
then a number of for-sex-only women on the side, while many women might have a
"main man" and then a stable of "play brothers" who provide them with anything and
everything but sex (even though some women seek to emulate men in today's dating
scene, and have their share of "for-sex-only" male partners too).

I would recommend Her to both men and women. In order to enjoy it thoroughly, you
cannot look at the film or the situations as being totally real, but rather as metaphors
for real life situations that have been experienced in the New Millennium, and more
importantly, that will be experienced during the remainder of the 21st Century.

On a personal note, I am so glad I do not have my own version of "Samantha." An

operating system that could send out e-mail messages to all of my personal contacts
on my behalf? After a heated argument? No thank you.

I'll stick with Windows 7 for now.

Her opens nationwide on Friday, January 10, 2014

The '80-20 Rule' theory
explains a lot of today's
problems among dating
singles
Have you ever visited a popular nightclub in a major city, and you noticed that one
guy may have three, four, or five women hanging around him while another three or
four guys in that same club have no women paying them any attention at all? How
could this happen?

Let's say a professional matchmaking organization got one thousand single

heterosexual women together and transported them to an island where all of their
living expenses would be covered, and they would never be in desperate need for
anything crucial to their survival, such as food, beverages, clothing, and comfortable
living quarters. All of these women have acknowledged that they want to find a long-
term boyfriend to spend time with romantically and sexually.

Now, this same professional matchmaking organization has identified one thousand
healthy single heterosexual men and transported them to this same island. All of
these men have expressed an interest in finding an ideal woman to spend time with
romantically and sexually.

Conventional wisdom says . . . . within a matter of days, weeks, or months, the

men and women on that island will transition from 2,000 individual men and women
into 1,000 happy, loving couples.

The mythical '80-20 Rule' Theory of Dating and Relationships says . . . . within a
matter of days, weeks, or months, approximately 800 of the 1,000 women are going
to be competing with each other for the attention and companionship of roughly 200
of the 1,000 men on that island.

Many would argue that the 'conventional wisdom' scenario would be more probable
and valid while a good number of other men and women would lean toward
acknowledging the validity of the controversial 80-20 Rule Theory.

For those who favor the 'conventional wisdom' scenario, let me ask you just a few
questions:

1. Why do men who seem to have a great wife or girlfriend cheat on her?

2. Why do women who seem to have a great husband or boyfriend cheat on

him?
3. Why do so many men become harsh critics of other men who they
perceive as more popular with women than themselves?

4. Why is it that some men can have sex with multiple women without
spending money on them or promising them indefinite monogamy, while
other men have a hard time getting women to spend time with them in a
romantic or sexual manner even when they are flattering, financially
generous, and totally willing to engage in a monogamous relationship
with a woman?

5. Why do some men start out seeming like "polite nice guys," but months
later or years later, many of these same men become hateful
misogynists?

What effects would the '80-20 Rule' Theory cause that would result in us observing
many of the problems we see in todays dating scene among healthy, active singles?

Effect #1:

The 'Top 20%' of the men on that island would feel very happy, relaxed, and content.
Why? Because these men would consistently have an average of four different
women offering them an invitation to have sex on a regular basis.

Problem #1 caused by Effect #1:

At least a small percentage of the women particularly those with selfish, spoiled
egos are not going to just freely allow those men from the Top 20% to indefinitely
have their "pick of the litter." Many of those eight-hundred women are going to
express an ultimatum to the Top 200 men and force them to choose THEM as their
main woman (i.e., wife, monogamous sex partner, long-term girlfriend, etc.).

Problem #2 caused by Effect #1:

As a result of Problem #1, many of the men in the Top 20% are going to become
liars and cheaters. They will indefinitely present themselves as "monogamy-minded
gentlemen," but in reality, they just have too many opportunities to have sex with
other women being thrown their way. Consequently, they end up choosing one main
woman and then they relegate the remaining three women as mistresses, jump
offs, or on-the-side women.

How Effect #1 reveals itself in real life: We all either know, or have heard about, at
least one man who is married, engaged, or involved in what is supposed to be a
long-term monogamous romantic relationship with a woman who has at least one
mistress and at least two other side pieces. So, you could never argue that Effect
#1 of the '80-20 Rule' Theory is strictly "hypothetical."

Effect #2:

Many of the men in the remaining 'Bottom 80%' are going to become agitated and
frustrated as time passes by. This will cause them to either a) become more
competitive and ambitious so that they too can be perceived as being in that Top
20% category, or b) become jealous, envious haters of the men who are currently
in the Top 20%, and they will think of some mean-spirited methods of undermining
their romantic and sexual appeal to women.

Problem #1 caused by Effect #2:

Many of the men in the Top 20% category are going to generally get along with each
other. Many of the men in the Bottom 80% are also going to get along fairly well with
one another. But a man who perceives himself in the Bottom 80% is always going to
be ultra-competitive with a man who he perceives as being in that Top 20%. This will
create many phony friendships and incidents of back-stabbing between so-called
friends.

Problem #2 caused by Effect #2:

Some men will go beyond the idea of simply making attempts to improve their looks,
their level of education, their level of career success, or their level of wealth. Some
men on that island from the Bottom 80% will soon become so bitter and resentful to
the point where they will look to cause physical harm to the men in the Top 20%. If
not physical harm, they will look for ways to emasculate and humiliate their manhood
in some sort of public manner.

How Effect #2 reveals itself in real life: How many times have you observed a man
who was not that popular with women hating on a guy who was real popular with
women? This does not happen by chance or by accident. I have witnessed men start
fights with other men for no valid reason other than the fact that they were jealous
and envious of that man's popularity with women. This is why many male celebrities
(who are popular with women) tend to only go out in public with some sort of security
personnel.

Napoleon Hill, author of Think and Grow Rich, intimated in his book that the single
most significant factor that will motivate a (heterosexual) man to improve himself and
his quality of life is the desire to improve the quality of women and/or increase the
quantity of women he is able to date and have sex with.

Effect #3:

A number of the women on the island who have grown tired of being relegated to the
status of 'mistress' or 'side piece' by one or more members of the Top 20% are going
to end up doing one of two things: 1) stop pursuing a monogamous relationship with
the men in The Top 20% and start settling for the men in the Bottom 80% primarily
so they can have children and someone to provide for them, or 2) stop dating any of
the men on the island, and become content with being by themselves indefinitely (or
turn to other women for romantic and sexual companionship, hence becoming
bisexual).

Problem #1 caused by Effect #3:

If scenario #1 happens, many of the women who were formerly the mistresses and
jump offs to the men in the Top 20% are going to become the new girlfriends and
future wives to the men in the bottom 80%. This is where a saying of mine comes
into play: One mans kinky fu** buddy is another mans wife or girlfriend(many of
my coaching clients and radio show listeners have quoted me on that dozens of
times).

Many of these women will find themselves in a marriage of convenience that really
does not truly make them happy. These women will immediately seek to take control
of the relationship, and will expect their male companion to play up to them and feel
overjoyed that they were even selected to have the opportunity to have occasional
sex with them that the men have to practically beg for. Many women will have one or
more children by a man in the Top 20%, and select a man from the Bottom 80% to
help her raise the child(ren).

Problem #2 caused by Effect #3:

If scenario #2 happens, a lot of the men on that island are going to become
incredibly sexually frustrated. Some of those sexually frustrated men will turn to
internet porn, while others will turn to violence provoked by their long-standing
sexual frustration. An extreme few might become so frustrated and angry that they
will start raping or serial killing the women who blatantly ignored them or harshly
rejected them.

How Effect #3 reveals itself in real life: How many men have you met who literally
hate women with a passion? (what is commonly known as a misogynist). Do you
think those men are in the Top 20%? Of course not. If a mans only dependable sex
partner is his right or left hand coated with Vaseline, at some point he is going to
snap. This is why you have men in society who have a history of raping women or
killing women.

How many times have you known a woman who previously only dated handsome,
popular, charming womanizer types when she was between the ages of 18 and 29 or
21 and 34, but then when she turned 35 or 36, she announced emphatically that she
now wanted an "attentive, considerate, respectful nice guy?" Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. What she
is really saying is, "I dated my share of guys from the Top 20%, but now that I am
getting older and I want to settle down and have some babies, I am going to 'settle'
for a man from that Bottom 80%."

And how many of those types of women do you know who treat their boyfriends and
husbands like total crap? How many men do you know who are currently married to
a woman and raising one or more children that are not even their own? I rest my
case.

Effect #4:

Some of the men on that island from that privileged 'Top 20%' group are going to find
a way to be entrepreneurial, and at the same time, help their fellow men from the
Bottom 80% out. How? They will allow the women who are currently their mistresses
and side pieces to have one night stands with men from the low end of the totem
pole for a flat monetary fee. Welcome to the wonderful world of Pimpology 101.

Problem #1 caused by Effect #4:

Many of the women who would gladly have sex with a man in the Top 20% are now
exchanging their sexual companionship for financial favors and material gifts from
the men in the Bottom 80%. The men enjoy the sex, but after a while, they come to
resent the fact that they have to pay money for it. They gain a measure of egotistical
revenge by labeling such women as whores. Similarly, the men from the Bottom
80% who find out that their wives and girlfriends are having sex behind-their-back
with men from the Top 20% are labeled sluts. Many of the women accept these
labels with indifference while other women become sensitive to such labels and label
their critics "misogynists" and "jerks."

Problem #2 caused by Effect #4:

Remember those men from the Bottom 80% who I mentioned had to practically beg
their wives and girlfriends for sex? Some of these men will start having regular, semi-
regular, or occasional interactions with the women of the night (i.e., the women who
are being pimped out by the men from the Top 20%). If they are caught by their
wives and girlfriends, this is going to cause major problems and arguments with their
significant others, and those women who were treated as "leftovers" by the Top 20%
are going to break up or divorce their cheating partners from the Bottom 80%.

How Effect #4 reveals itself in real life: Street pimps were very popular in the mid-
to-late 1960s, the 1970s, and 1980s. There are still a few pimps who are active in
todays society, but many women - because of feminism and a new sense of
empowerment - tend to act more as free agents and present themselves as
upscale Call Girls or Erotic Escorts, and they have virtually eliminated the need for a
pimp's guidance and protection. These women realize that the vast majority of the
men in the Bottom 80% are not violent, and that these men will pay top dollar to have
sex with a woman who presents herself as being out of the man's league.

Bottom line?

There may not be any scientific evidence that the '80-20 Rule' Theory of Dating and
Relationships is in full effect in todays dating scene, but it is very hard to ignore the
seemingly evident proof that is in front of our eyes on a weekly basis. Many single
men in today's dating scene are frustrated, and many of the women are as well.

Quick Q & A

"Alan, applying your 80-20 island scenario to real life, how can I tell if I am a man in
that mythical Top 20%? Is the criteria based on looks? Wealth? Career success?
Sexual prowess? Other?"

Assuming the 80-20 Rule Theory is valid, the simple way you can identify which
category you are in would be if you can pick up your phone right now, and call up at
least four different women who you are genuinely attracted to - invite them to your
place for the specific purpose of having sex with you - and all four women would
enthusiastically reciprocate your invitation without hesitation or resistance. If that is
your reality rather than your fantasy, you can consider yourself in that highly
esteemed Top 20%.

If you are married, but you have at least three other women offering to be your
mistress or side piece, you would also qualify for the Top 20%. Any other scenario,
you would fall into the Bottom 80%.

There are men who have achieved a high degree of career success and wealth who
know nothing about how to attract the romantic and sexual interest of women. Some
men naturally have 'game' and personal charm with women, some men learn how to
have it, and some men will never have it. For the latter, sad ... but true.

"Alan, will my love life or sex life be miserable if I am perceived as being in the
Bottom 80%?"

Not necessarily. There are a number of men in society who have one girlfriend who
they are happy with or a wife who they are madly in love with, and those feelings are
reciprocated. No man has to be a prolific womanizer or popular ladies' man in order
to be happy.

"Alan, I would think most women would be turned off by men who seem promiscuous
and have a number of other women at their beck and call. This 80-20 Rule Theory
seems to suggest just the opposite. I don't get it. Can you explain?"

One thing I can assure you: a 'promiscuous past' does not have the same effect on
women that it does with many men who suffer from the negative effects ofThe
Madonna / Whore Complex. Women are attracted to men who they feel other
women find romantically and sexually desirable (men are not that much different in
that respect). My own late mother even said to me once, "No woman wants a man
who they feel no other woman would want to date."

One service that has become increasingly popular over the past few years is that of
"The Wing Woman." Unlike a Call Girl or an Erotic Escort, who a man would hire for
sexual companionship, the Wing Woman would accompany a man to a party,
nightclub, or other social venue just to help that man capture the attention and
companionship of other women of interest.

Based on my own personal experiences, I will confirm: women do pay more attention
to you when you are seen with one or more attractive women in public. I had a
female friend call into my talk radio show a few months back and confess that she
is one of those women. She said that whenever she was at a nightclub, she always
paid the most attention to the guys who were there with one or more female
companions as opposed to the guys who were in the nightclub by themselves or with
other men.

In the same way many believe that "when you already have wealth, you will always
attract new opportunities for even more wealth," the same can be said for receiving
sexual attention from women. The more attention a man is already receiving from
women, typically, the more opportunities will come his way way for even more
attention from women.

For the men who are already in the mythical 'Top 20%' ... you should be
congratulated. Not hated on. Kudos.

For the men who are in the Bottom 80%, but aspiring to be in the Top 20% ... you
have to have something that drives your ambitions .... right?

For the men who are in the Bottom 80%, and content with being there .... if you have
at least one girlfriend who genuinely loves you to death or a wife who would never
think of cheating on you ... what else do you need?

For the men who are in the Bottom 80% and experiencing profound feelings of
anger, resentment, and frustration ... I am here to help. Contact me (seriously).

My mission continues . . .
Men will usually cheat as
long as there are women
who offer them the
opportunity
I receive a lot of questions and comments on a weekly basis from my male and
female readers. Arguably, the question I get asked the most repeatedly from my
female readers is "Why do men cheat so much? Why can't men remain faithful to
one woman?" I am literally amazed that more women do not know the answer to that
question. If you read my previous article, The '80-20 Rule' theory explains a lot of
today's problems among dating singles, you probably know where I am headed
with my response to that frequently asked question.

Comedian Chris Rock once had a comedy bit where he said, "When men listen to
their male friends talk about how wonderful their wife or girlfriend is, they will say to
themselves, 'I want a woman JUST LIKE THAT!' But when women listen to their
girlfriends talk about how wonderful their husband or boyfriend is, they will say to
themselves, 'I want HIM!" The crowd laughed hysterically, in part, because the vast
majority of the women in the audience knew that Rock was telling the truth.

Here is the reality: there are far more women in society who are attracted to men
who are married, engaged, or otherwise romantically involved than there are women
who are not. To take it a step further, I would actually argue that it is much easier to
attract and seduce women when you already have a steady sex partner (e.g., wife,
fiance, long-term girlfriend, etc.) than it is when you are a man who is single and
unattached.

Popular comedic actor Adam Sandler actually made a movie entitled, Just Go With
It, about a man who uses a fake wedding ring in order to seduce women into bed.
The plot for that romantic comedy is not farfetched. The first person to share this
phenomenon with me was one of my older cousins when I was young. He
said, "Ever since I started wearing my wedding ring, women have come out of the
woodworks giving me [sexual] attention."

Personally, I have always received more sexual attention from women during those
periods when I had a serious 'girlfriend' than I have during the periods when I was
single and unattached. Every time. For example, when I was involved in a
monogamous relationship during the latter half of 2009 and first half of 2010, I
probably received more Facebook "pokes" from women than I ever have during a
period where I have been single and unattached.
I once met a woman who had recently divorced from her husband, who was a
pastor, because he was having sex with multiple women in his church. We are not
talking about four or five women. Try 35-40 different women. The kicker is, all of the
women he cheated with knew he was married (the woman did not know her husband
was cheating until some of the women who had slept with her husband decided to
come clean and confess to her).

How does that happen? How do as many as forty women ... forty church
going women ... allow themselves to have sex with their married pastor? Talk about
"pimps in the pulpit." Maybe he was just that good in bed. I had a female friend once
tell me, "Alan, I am going to be blunt. I would rather be the number two, the number
three, or the number four woman to a man who is really, really good in bed than be
the number one woman to a guy who sucks in bed." I have a friend who told me just
a couple of years ago that in the first ten years of his marriage, he had sex with
approximately fifty women, and no less than forty-five of those fifty women knew he
was married before they agreed to have sex with him.

What is ironic to me about women's behavior is this: next to a man's sexual prowess,
at least half of what attracts a woman to a man who is already in a relationship is the
fact that he seems to be a "good man" (i.e., honest and monogamy-minded). So for
a woman to then turn around and tempt that 'good man' into an adulterous tryst or
affair is ultimately going to diminish one of the traits that made him appealing in the
first place.

Now if a man has great moral character and integrity, and deep religious convictions,
it is not going to matter if he has dozens of women throwing invitations his way for an
opportunity for 'on-the-side' sexual activity. He will maintain the self-discipline that is
necessary to resist those lustful temptations. The men who fall into that category
though are definitely in the minority.

For most men, if they keep receiving invitation after invitation after invitation, at some
point, they are going to give in. That is why there is an old saying, "A man is only as
faithful as his lack of options." Simply put, the more opportunities to cheat a man is
presented with, the more likely that man is going to give in to one or more of those
opportunitites.

Men ... generally speaking ... are just not the same. Rarely, if ever, do I hear men I
am acquainted with talking about pursuing the romantic and/or sexual
companionship of a woman who is married or engaged. Once a woman has a ring
on her finger, her appeal significantly diminishes in the eyes of most men. Many of
the men I know who have engaged in sex with married women have usually
indicated that it was the women who made the first move ... and not them. Based on
my own experiences with married women, I would tend to concur.

For starters, most men know how jealous, temperamental, and territorial other men
are. Very few men want to get wrapped up in the "drama" of pursuing a married
woman only to have her crazy, enraged husband pull out a gun and shoot them in
the head. Secondly, men have an underlying "we don't want another man's sloppy
seconds" mentality. So, for the vast majority of men, if we know that a woman is
exchanging orgasms with her husband every day or every other day, we'll usually
choose to pass on the invitation (but if the woman says, "My husband and I have not
had sex in three months!!" then it is a totally different story).

Bottom line is this: if you are a woman reading this article, and you find yourself
asking yourself, "Why do men cheat so much?" the question you actually should be
asking yourself is, "Why do so many women find men who are married, engaged, or
otherwise romantically involved so romantically and sexually appealing?"

The day all men stop cheating on their wife, fiance, or long-term girlfriend will be the
day all women start having a reaction of, "You're in a relationship? Ewwwwww.
Thank you, but no thank you. There is nothing appealing to me about the idea of
having sex with a man who is already having regular sex with another woman.
Yuck!"

And we all know, that day is never, ever coming.

The history of 'casual' sex:
feminists wanted sexual
freedom ... and they got it
If there is one criticism I receive from a number of women regarding my
books (usually from women who have yet to thoroughly read one or more of my
books), it is that I place too much emphasis on the pursuit of short-term and/or non-
monogamous 'casual' sex rather than the pursuit of emotionally profound,
monogamous 'relationship sex.'

For starters, that criticism is not altogether valid. In my first book, Mode One: Let the
Women Know What You're REALLY Thinking, I discuss the power of effective
interpersonal communication skills for all aspects of dating and relationships ... not
just the pursuit of short-term or non-monogamous sex. Even though the book is
targeted toward male readers, many women have read the book and benefited from
it.

The book of mine that does focus almost exclusively on the pursuit of casual
sex would be Oooooh . . . Say it Again: Mastering the Fine Art of Verbal
Seduction and Aural Sex. In that book, I basically teach single heterosexual men
how to identify and seduce women who I refer to as 'Pretenders' (i.e., women who
will publicly give off the impression that they are prudish and not really into short-
term or non-monogamous sex, but behind closed doors, these women are very
kinky, free-spirited, and have no problem engaging in a few episodes of casual sex).

You know what is most interesting to me? The fact that the media will have you
believe that men are the ones who primarily benefit from the idea of 'hooking up,'
when the reality is that it was actually women who first pushed for more sexual
freedom and 'ownership' over their own bodies.

If you do your research, you will find that men have always wanted their female sex
partners to be totally monogamous to them. Very few men wanted to marry a woman
who had already exchanged orgasms with another man. Let's take a brief look at
some factors that play into today's more "open-minded" attitude toward sex.

I. A Brief History: Previous century marriages and how Dr. Sigmund Freud's
'Madonna / Whore Complex' factored in those marriages

First, please read my previous article where I break down the ins and outs of
Freud's Madonna / Whore Complex. If you are too lazy to read, I will give you the
short version: In the 19th Century, famed psychologist Dr. Sigmund Freud asserted
that a majority of the men in society wanted at least two women in their lives: one
woman who presents herself as a "prudish good girl" who would share the best
qualities of that man's mother, and be a great nanny and nurturer to his offspring;
and another woman who would present herself as more of a kinky 'sex siren' who
would be willing to help him fulfill all of his sexual fantasies, and who he could enjoy
many episodes of erotically uninhibited orgasmic pleasure with.

The concept of the 'mistress' existed many years before Freud was even born. One
of the first incarnations of the mistress role was the 'Courtesan.' A Courtesan was
similar to a woman today that would be known as a high priced Call Girl or Erotic
Escort.

In previous centuries, many of the men who had wealth, power, authority and a high
degree of social status did not marry women for the sake of enjoyable sex. A good
number of these types of men married a woman who was attractive, classy,
intelligent, and well-spoken. The wife's role was to be a complement to the man's
social stature, look good on his arm at formal social functions, and to be a great
mother to his children.

One of the man's close friends or business associates would then identify and hire a
sexy, erotically uninhibited Courtesan to become the man's primary sex partner.
Plain and simple, her job was to obey and submit to each of the man's requests for
sexual enjoyment and satisfaction. The role of the wife in this scenario was neither to
satisfy the man in bed, nor be satisfied in bed. The wife's role was to engage in
sexual relations primarily for the sake of reproduction.

Many of the wives knew about their husband's mistresses, and generally did not
object. Their attitude was, "I am being taken care of financially .... I am living a great
life ... who am I to complain?" Well, as you can expect, some women did begin to
complain. Which leads us to . . .

II. The First Wave of Feminism: The Growing Disdain for Mistresses and
Courtesans

As mentioned, many women who were the wives of men with wealth, power, and
prestige did not mind their husbands engaging in sexual relations with one or more
Courtesans. You have to remember that back in the day, not all women could just go
to college, be offered a high paying job, and then subsequently take care of
themselves.

In previous centuries, snagging a husband with great wealth was the equivalent to a
woman being offered a job with a six-figure salary. So think about it: If you were a
woman in this era, and your husband was having sex with one or two Courtesans,
what would make you go from being "lenient" and "forgiving" toward that scenario to
becoming angry, bitter, and spiteful about the same scenario? "Ah ... okay, got it,"
you're saying to yourself right now.

Wives were willing to tolerate their husbands having a mistress, as long as those
mistresses "knew their place" and did not in any way threaten their lifestyle. Soon,
many of the Courtesans were not satisfied with just being the "other woman." Many
of them wanted to be upgraded from #2 to #1 (have things changed today? I think
not). So some of the Courtesans started allowing themselves to purposely get
pregnant in order to gain more access to the lavish lifestyles experienced by many of
the more conservative wives. Many men began replacing their older wives with
younger Courtesans, and that did not sit well with the recently dumped wives.

As a result, the married women started finding ways to undermine the appeal of the
more free-spirited Courtesans. Soon, terms like "whore" began to be used more and
more, as well as the similar term of "slut." Basically, to refer to a woman as a "whore"
or "slut" was the same thing as essentially categorizing a woman as being "only
good for sex." In other words, once a woman got branded as a 'whore' or 'slut,' she
was viewed as being "not good enough to marry." Many times, if the Courtesan
became pregnant, the husband and demanding wife would pressure her to have an
abortion.

Consequently, the end result of the Victorian Era was that all women in society
were highly encouraged to present themselves as "marriage material." Many women
felt that if they presented themselves as a candidate to be a man's wife, they would
attract men who were willing to financially support them and enhance their level of
social status. Conversely, if a woman was to continue to present herself as a 'whore'
or 'slut,' she would never get married, never have children, and would only be seen
as a 'sexual play toy' for men to use and then later discard.

III. The Second Wave of Feminism: Women not only want Equal Rights in the
Workplace, but they want to 'Control Their Own Bodies' in Life and in the
Bedroom

During the second major phase of feminism, the rift between women who respected
the institution of marriage and the women who could care less about marriage
became more prominent. In the media, it was men who were labeled 'the bad guy.'
For those who really took a closer look at what was going on, they knew there was
more to it than women who were being taken for granted vs. their more controlling
male bosses and husbands. Feminism was really as much about 'prudish, marriage-
minded women vs. kinky, promiscuous type women" as it was "women vs. men."

On one end, you had women who were married who wanted their (wealthy)
husbands to pay more attention to them, put forth more effort to please and satisfy
them in bed, and protect themselves financially in the event that their husbands
decided to dump them and replace them with a younger woman when they reached
their mid-to-late 40s or early 50s (Think of Michael Jordan's ex-wife, Juanita. She is
set for life financially). Let's call this group 'The Disrespected Wives Club.'

On the other end, you had the women who had traditionally been the 'mistress' or
'on-the-side' types that wanted more opportunities for employment, more freedom
over what type of men and how many men they could have sex with, and they
wanted the women from 'The Disrespected Wives Club' to stop labeling them
'whores' and 'sluts' and instead be treated like women who were worthy of respect ...
and even marriage (if that is what they wanted). Let's call this group 'The
Disrespected Mistresses Club.' (Ever heard of Lola Montez? What about Christine
Keeler? Both of these women would have been part of 'The Disrespected Mistresses
Club')
You starting to get the picture? On paper, feminism seemed like it was all about
women coming together to form a monolithic mindset and a greater sense of
solidarity in order to gain more respect and opportunities from men in modern
society.

Underneath that public faade was the fact that the women who were part of 'The
Disrespected Wives Club' hated the women who were part of 'The Disrespected
Mistresses Club.' Do you think that former First Lady Hillary Clinton has any
genuine love for Monica Lewinsky? Clinton would probably share a dinner
with Rush Limbaugh or Dick Morris before she would Lewinsky.

The advent of the birth control pill and other forms of contraceptives played right into
the hands of 'The Disrespected Mistresses Club.' You mean, they could enjoy sex
with men (and particularly married men) and not risk becoming pregnant?
Hallelujah!!

Both groups of women ultimately seemed to achieve most of their goals. The women
of 'The Disrespected Wives Club' were able to become financially empowered and
financially self-sufficient if they needed to, and they put themselves in a better
position to earn a percentage of their husband's salary and net worth if their husband
chose to divorce them and replace them with a younger woman. The women of 'The
Disrespected Mistresses Club' acted as the impetus for what is known as 'The
Sexual Revolution,' and now they were free to openly show their sensuality by
wearing sexually provocative clothing and engaging in sex outside the context of
marriage if they chose to.

To the more naive factions of society, the 'Wives' and the 'Mistresses' appeared to
be on the same page. When it came to better employment opportunities and
financial opportunities, they actually were. But when it came to who they wanted to
have sex with, and in what manner, the two groups were worlds apart.

The members of 'The Disrespected Wives Club' wanted their husbands to appreciate
them more, be more faithful and monogamous, and look to please and satisfy them
in bed just as much or more than their mistresses. After all, there are over twice as
many nerve endings in a woman's clitoris than there are in the head of a man's
penis (the average woman's clitoris has approximately 8,000 sensory nerve endings;
the head of a man's penis has approximately 3,500 sensory nerve endings). Also,
once again, they did not want to be just discarded when their beauty began to fade
and be left struggling financially.

The members of 'The Disrespected Mistresses Club' wanted to basically emulate the
sexual promiscuity of men. They wanted to be able to 'have their cake and eat it too'
just like they observed wealthy, powerful men doing so. Their attitude was, "We're
not stupid. We know if we hold off on having sex until marriage, we are eventually
going to be cheated on and taken for granted. Therefore, we are going to have our
fun while we're young, and then maybe - just maybe - get married when we get
older."

If there are women in today's society who genuinely frown on the notion of 'casual
sex' and 'hooking up,' they have no one to blame but the members of their own
gender who were active in the feminist movement in the late 1950s, 1960s, 1970s,
and early 1980s. The main mantra of women during that time (and particularly those
of 'The Disrespected Mistresses Club') was, "These are OUR bodies, and we want to
do with them what we desire!"

IV. The Third Wave of Feminism: "You can call me names ... but I am going to
make you pay to have sex with me!"

As we all know, many aspects of society have changed between the 19th Century
and the 21st Century. This is why the appeal of marriage is not the same as it once
was.

Today, many women in society have accumulated just as much, if not more wealth
than many men. Many women are also in positions of power, authority, and prestige.
Feminists encouraged women to not stand for professional or personal "disrespect"
by men, and included in that change of mindset was the declaration that no wife
should have to put up with her husband having another woman as a 'mistress' or
'side piece.' Prostitution now remains legal in only a few countries (see list).

Despite these wide array of changes to societal customs and traditions, what
aspects of male-female interactions have generally remained the same? I think
you're beginning to surmise where I am headed.

Even as women have become more financially sufficient and empowered, most
women still do not like the idea of another woman who may be more attractive than
them, younger than them, sexier than them, and more free-spirited and erotically
uninhibited than them trying to "steal" their husbands away from them. Women who
are more prudish and focused on finding a husband - and more importantly, keeping
a husband - still frown on the idea of women who tempt their husbands with quick,
easily available sexual companionship.

Hence, why women of today still push for the idea of those free-spirited,
promiscuous women to be categorized as "whores" and "sluts." And more
importantly, many of these sexually conservative marriage-minded women have
persuaded many of the men in society to share and maintain their judgmental
attitudes and subjective labels toward the women who have a reputation for being
sexually promiscuous.

On the other end, the women who are more of the "temptress" types have gained
more influence and power over men. The freedom to engage in short-term and/or
non-monogamous 'casual' sex is actually a form of financial power for many single
women in society.

Laws against prostitution can easily be circumvented by women who are calculating
and savvy, not to mention beautiful and sexy. They can simply get a man to 'wine
and dine' them in exchange for sexual favors. A woman who allows herself to be
open to short-term and/or non-monogamous sex increases her chances of having
sex with men who are essentially "out of her league." To put it more bluntly, if all
women were committed to remaining celibate until marriage, many women would
end up married to men who were either poor, boring, or unsatisfying in bed ... or
worse ... they would never be proposed to at all.

If you read my last book, The Possibility of Sex: How Naive and Lustful Men are
Manipulated by Women Regularly, I briefly discuss an experience I had while a
member of a cult-like church in Los Angeles. Every single man and woman in the
church was obligated to practice premarital celibacy. Guess which gender had the
harder time with this? On paper, you would assume the men. Nope. It was the
women. During my two-and-a-half year membership in that church, I witnessed more
women leave that church because of romantic and sexual frustration than there were
men who left the church for the same reasons.

So much for the 'myth' that it is men who are more impatient to have sex with women
prior to marriage.

V. How feminists have brainwashed men to feel guilty about the pursuit of
casual sex

Talk about having your cake and eating it too. +1 for members of 'The Disrespected
Wives Club,' +1 for members of 'The Disrespected Mistresses Club,' and -2 for men
who suffer from The Madonna / Whore Complex.

The women who were in the 'Disrespected Wives Club' said, "We are not going to
stand for this type of disrespect by our husbands any longer!" End result: Far fewer
women are willing to be 'Stay-at-Home Moms.' Women now cheat on their husbands
as much as men previously cheated on them. And if you think about dumping your
older wife and replacing her with a younger, more erotically uninhibited woman, you
are going to pay for it in the form of a large divorce settlement.

The women who were in the 'Disrespected Mistresses Club' said, "We deserve just
as much respect as married women receive, and we deserve the right to have sex
outside the context of marriage with as many men as we choose to!" End result: If
you choose to criticize any woman for being 'too promiscuous,' and subsequently
label her a 'whore' or a 'slut' you will be labeled a 'chauvinist,' a 'misogynist', or if you
are a woman, a 'jealous hater.'

What the feminists from 'The Disrespected Mistresses Club' did not anticipate were
men like Hugh Hefner and other savvy businessmen (even street pimps) who knew
how to exploit this new "free-spirited" type of woman. These men persuaded women
to use their looks, their bodies, and overall sex appeal as a means of making money
for the businessmen and the women (of course, more for the businessmen). Put
simply, these 'sexually adventurous' women began to get exploited. Who got the
blame? Men.

In the short-run, the original intentions of the feminist movement appeared to be a

'good' thing for all women, but in the long-run, their efforts basically backfired. In their
attempt to prevent men from "having their cake and eating it too" (i.e., a husband
being able to have a wife and one or two mistresses), they opened the door for
women to be objectified and exploited for money both by men and by their own
gender.
The feminists - both the frustrated 'Wives' and the frustrated 'Mistresses' -
decided to play the middle from both ends, and they failed. What the feminists
have never owned up to is the fact that in their attempt to combat a problem, they
unintentionally created new and different problems.

Here is what the feminists of 'The Disrespected Wives Club' ideally wanted to
happen:

1) They wanted married women to have more say-so and their own sense of
financial earning power, instead of just having circumstances dictated to them by
their control freak husbands;

2) They wanted married women to stop being treated like "child birthing machines"
and nannies, and be treated more like complete human beings whose sexual needs
are just as great as their husbands;

3) They wanted to stop the practice of married men maintaining mistresses and 'on-
the-side women' while their wives were between the ages of 18 and 44, and then
replacing the dutiful wives with a younger mistress when the wife reached the age of
45 - 50;

4) Similar to #3, they wanted the "dumped wives" to be able to earn a percentage of
their ex-husband's net worth in the event that they are dismissed and replaced by a
younger new second (or third) wife.

Being objective, those goals were not undesirable or unfair at all. They were
reasonable.

Here is what the feminists of 'The Disrespected Mistresses

Club' ideally wanted to happen:

1) They wanted the freedom to be just as sexually free-spirited and promiscuous as

men;

2) They wanted married women to stop labeling them a 'whore' or 'slut' and
categorizing them as 'unmarriageable';

3) They wanted the opportunity to use their looks and sex appeal to earn a living for
themselves;

4) Similar to #2, they wanted men to treat them with the same degree of respect that
they offer to the more prudish type women.

In other words, this group wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

Here is where things went wrong:

1) Once women were given the opportunity to gain just as much power and social
status as men without being married, and earn just as much money as men without
being married, guess what? Many women lost interest in getting married and many
men lost interest in marrying these types of women.

2) Now, instead of women being treated like nothing more than glorified nannies and
housekeepers, many women in today's society are treated like nothing more than
sexually promiscuous nymphomaniacs who can be 'rented' for a few hours or a few
days, and then discarded.

3) Before, you had men who would marry the more 'prudish' type women and just
engage in casual relations with the more 'free-spirited' types. Now, the lines between
those two types of women have become more "blurred." In other words, most of the
women who used to be more 'prudish' have now become more kinky, promiscuous,
and sexually adventurous ... and many of the promiscuous women who used to be
totally indifferent toward marriage now want to know what it feels like to have a
husband and children. A good number of men have become wary of both groups;

4) Today, society is full of women who are not getting married or pregnant because
of 'true love,' but rather, many women identify men with wealth, fame, power, and
prestige, and they set their sights on getting pregnant by these men so that they will
have a regular income check come their way in the form of alimony, child support, or
both. Many successful men have become "materialistic targets" rather than objects
of love and affection.

5) The vast majority of men never wanted women to have the freedom to sleep with
anyone and everyone, but once the sexual revolution took place, men bought into it,
and started sowing their wild oats like crazy. Now, men are looked at as the "bad
guys" for taking advantage of that new found 'sexual freedom' that women
themselves pushed so hard for.

Some women decided to seek a "compromise" of sorts. Introducing the idea of the
long-term "boyfriend and girlfriend relationship!!" This relationship is not quite
marriage (you will not find mention of a 'boyfriend-girlfriend' relationship in the
Christian Bible or other religious books), but at least it prevents Daddy's little girl from
being labeled a 'whore' or a 'slut.' The young women can experience sex with
different men while maintaining some degree of civil and social respect.

The reality though is this: If you believe in God, and you call yourself a devout
Christian, then you know deep-down that 'boyfriend-girlfriend' sex is just another
variation of casual sex. Especially if that 'boyfriend-girlfriend' relationship does not
result in marriage.

Knowing what I know about history, I now laugh at women who call themselves
"admonishing men" for choosing casual sex over relationship sex. It is one big
hypocritical joke.

Women wanted more sexual satisfaction, and they got it. Women wanted more
freedom to do whatever they wanted to do with their bodies, and they got it. Women
wanted to earn more money in the workplace, and now they are able to.
Now that you have read this article, you realize the heart of what the TRUE scenario
is and always has been.

The truth is, this was never really a "men vs. women" issue. Initially, this was an
issue of "sexually unsatisfied married women vs. the women who wanted to steal
their rich, powerful husbands away from them," and now it has evolved to an issue of
"women who want marriage, indefinite monogamy, or financial favors in exchange for
sex vs. the women who just want to enjoy sex with a number of different men who
are going to satisfy them in bed (without the men promising monogamy or financial
favors)."

Men have just been caught in the middle of these various battles between two
groups of women with different sexual agendas and different sexual morals and
values, and have been somehow tricked into taking some of the blame for it. If
women never wanted 'casual' sex to take place, they would have never opened their
legs unless they had a ring on their left hand. No wonder Book Author Esther
Villar received death threats from feminist types when she wrote and published,

highlighting in this article: Women are playing the role of the 'victim' for a
scenario and social environment that they themselves created.

If there was no such thing as marriage or all women in history had committed
themselves to only having sex with a man who was their husband, most of the tenets
and major principles of feminism that related to heterosexual women's love lives and
sex lives would have never existed.

I, for one, will not express any "guilt" for engaging in casual sex. I know what the real
deal is. Divorce rates are rising, marriage rates are decreasing, and women like Kim
Kardashian have become celebrity superstars because of a sex tape. I will never
apologize for wanting to engage in casual sex with women, and I will never allow
myself to be made to feel guilty for 'using women's bodies for my own self-
gratification.'

Men are by no means "innocent" in all of this. Many men with wealth and power have
always wanted to have their cake and eat it too. The problem is and was, for many
centuries, women were willing to (reluctantly) allow it. Then, all of the sudden, you
had one group of women that said, "No more! Enough!" and another group of women
that said, "Let them have multiple partners ... as long as you allow us to enjoy
multiple partners too!!" And then the concept of 'feminism' came to the forefront.
Women vs. women with men in the middle.

Not quite the mnage trois us men were looking for, but we'll deal with it.

Like we always have.

The rise of masculine,
dominant women and
effeminate, submissive men
in society
It has never been a secret that many lesbian women tend to maintain a masculine
demeanor, and similarly many gay men lean toward exhibiting behavior that is
effeminate. In the 21st Century, I have noticed more and more that many bisexual
and heterosexual women are increasingly starting to behave in a significantly more
masculine manner and many heterosexual men are starting to exhibit behavior that
includes more passive, feminine traits.

The important question: is this a 'good' thing or a 'bad' thing?

I think the answer to that question depends on what you are looking for in a
relationship.

In the BDSM world of kinky sex (or what is otherwise known as the "fetish lifestyle"),
all men and women tend to fall into one of these three categories:

1. What is known as a "Top" or "Dom" (i.e., a man or woman who is the

erotically dominant partner 99.999% of the time)

2. What is known as a "Sub" or "Bottom" (i.e., a man or woman who is the

erotically submissive partner 99.999% of the time)

3. What is known as a "Switch" or "Flexible" (i.e., a man or woman who is

the erotically dominant partner a percentage of the time, but other times,
they behave like the erotically submissive partner)

If you are a heterosexual man, and you are a 'Sub' or 'Switch' type, it really would not
be too detrimental for you to pursue a woman who has masculine traits to be your
designated 'Top.'

Similarly, if you are a woman, and you are a 'Dom,' it is very conducive for you to
pursue and enjoy the company of men who are more submissive 'Bottom' types, or
at minimum, a man who is a 'Flexible' type.

I had two interviews recently on my adult-themed podcast program entitled The

Erotic Conversationalist. One was with Sex & Relationship Coach and Tantric
Sex Advisor Kendal Williams while the other interview was with Erotica Novelists
Megan Hussey and Saqqarah. In both interviews, my guests had criticisms of the
growing trend of masculine (heterosexual) women and effeminate (heterosexual)
men.

"One of the reasons why you have a lot of single, undersexed women in society is
because we have a bunch of women behaving like men, and a bunch of men
behaving like weak pu**ies," said Ms. Williams during our interview. In my next
interview, Saqqarah echoed Kendal's sentiments. "I have to tell you Alan ... I am not
turned on at all by passive, feminine men. You are starting to see more and more of
these types in society today," said Saqqarah.

Referring back to the three categories of sexual roles, a relationship with a man and
a woman who are both a 'Switch' can work. I have known of heterosexual couples
who were able to maintain a long-lasting romantic relationship or marriage that fell
into this category.

Making a relationship work with two 'Sub' or 'Bottom' types is extremely more
challenging (unless it is a relationship with multiple partners, such as one 'Top' and
two or three 'Bottoms'). Making a relationship work with two 'Tops' or 'Doms' is damn
near impossible. Two dominant personalities cannot co-exist in a long-term
relationship. The relationship will become a competitive battle of egos, and will only
result in argument after argument after argument. It might even result in violence.

This is why in the United States, you have only one President, one Governor, one
Mayor, and one Secretary of Defense. The idea of "Co-CEOs" rarely works, but a
handful of companies such as Whole Foods have made it work so far.

I remember once, me and a good friend and fraternity brother were arguing with
each other on our way to visit some female companions in Santa Monica. Minutes
later, he started chuckling to himself. I said, "What is so funny?" (I was still riled up)
He said, "You know the problem with our friendship A.C.? You and I are too much
alike. We are both Alpha Males, and we like to be in control of the conversation and
dictate what goes on at all times." Sure enough, we both laughed over the truth of
that assessment.

I remember when I was in college, I took a personality test, and one of the results of
that test was that I did not like taking orders from people. My academic advisor at the
time said to me, "Alan .. unless you immediately plan on being a self-employed
entrepreneur of some sort, you better plan on taking orders from someone."

If you read my previous article about "Alpha Male vs Alpha Female" dynamics, you
probably already know that I have very harsh criticisms of a male 'Top' and female
'Top' connecting romantically in a long-term, successful manner. With all due respect
to Facebook Chief Sheryl Sandberg and mega-superstar singer Beyonc, most
men I know have never meshed well romantically with "bossy" type women.

If a woman is 'lightheartedly' assertive here and there, most Alpha male types
generally do not have a problem with it. But once a woman reveals that she is a very
'controlling' type who likes to 'wear the pants' in a romantic relationship, the vast
majority of Alpha males are going to lose interest in her. I see more and more videos
on sites like YouTube.com and WorldStarHipHop.com that feature teenage and
young adult women (most of them African-American or Hispanic) fighting each other
in a manner like men. I find this trend very disturbing.

In September 2012, I was a featured speaker in Chicago at what is known as a

"Relationship Chat." Along with me during the event was another speaker by the
name of Ami Moore, and Ms. Moore had a lot of the African-American women fired
up in the audience after she boldly told them, "The reason why many of you all are
still single is because many of you are too bossy! You have too much 'yang' in your
personality and not enough 'yin'!!" Of course, at least half of the Black women in the
audience angrily challenged her assertion although I generally agreed with Ms.
Moore's statement.

In some women's defense, legendary Pimp Robert Beck a.k.a. Iceberg Slim once
said that if you take a woman who is naturally submissive, and you put her in a social
environment with a number of passive, effeminate, weak men with no balls or
backbone, then over a period time, her personality and behavior is going to become
progressively more dominant. So, in other words, maybe the reason why there are
so many masculine, dominant women in today's dating scene is because there are
too many thirsty, supplicating, weak men.

There has to be a 'Yin / Yang' dynamic in any romantic or sexual relationship.

Particularly a long-term one. Not only would I argue that this is true with just about all
heterosexual relationships, but if you closely examine most Gay and Lesbian
relationships, there is usually one partner who is more dominant than the other
partner - both in the bedroom and out of the bedroom.

Just last fall, I was involved in a heated debate on my talk radio podcast
program, Upfront & Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie, about this very
issue. One of my female guests suggested that most Alpha males wanted an Alpha
female as a wife or long-term romantic companion. I vehemently disagreed.

Some would argue that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are both 'Alpha,' but I have
observed these two interact repeatedly. Jolie may be very 'Alpha' with other women,
but not so much with Brad. She usually defers to Brad when she is in his presence.
Same could be said for the United States First Lady Michelle Obama. Mrs. Obama
has quite a few 'Alpha' traits in her personality, but I have never seen her disrespect
and/or attempt to emasculate her husband in public (Even the
aforementioned Beyonc titled her last tour, "Mrs. Carter" in deference to her
husband, Sean "Jay-Z" Carter).

Bottom line, too much 'yang' in a marriage or long-term romantic relationship just
does not work. Someone has to be on 'top' (pun intended).

If you are an Alpha female ... you need to seek out passive Beta males to be your
companions and husbands. Alpha males do not want your romantic or sexual
companionship unless you're willing to suppress your dominant, masculine traits
indefinitely and defer to him in order to make the relationship work. Otherwise, as
Ms. Kendal Williams expressed in my interview with her, you are going to grow old
being a lonely, romantically and sexually frustrated woman who owns a high number
of cats. If you cannot be a 'Sub' or 'Bottom' indefinitely ... at least be a 'Switch.'
Me? I prefer to have my romantic female companions affectionately (and
seductively) refer to me as "Sir" or even "Daddy."

And I can assure you . . . you will never catch Yours Truly wearing a dress or skirt.
Not even in a Saturday Night Live comedy skit on NBC.

I respectfully decline to feel a breeze between my legs.

Frustrated 'good girls' speak
out: how the Madonna /
Whore Complex affects
women
If you have been reading this column for a while, then you probably have read at
least one article where I have discussed Dr. Sigmund Freud's popular assertion of
what is known as the 'Madonna / Whore Complex.'

Typically, when I have discussed the Madonna / Whore Complex, I tend to discuss
how it can (negatively) affect a man's behavior toward his wife, long-term girlfriend,
or other companion. Here is another quick recap of how the Madonna / Whore
Complex affects men:

1) When a man suffers from the effects of the Madonna / Whore Complex, he
becomes practically incapable of only interacting with one female companion within
the context of marriage or a long-term 'boyfriend-girlfriend' relationship. The man
feels compelled to pursue the romantic and sexual companionship of at least two
women at all times.

2) One of the two women that this man will pursue will be a woman he perceives as
a 'prudish good girl' type; a woman who usually will possess many of his own
mother's best attributes, characteristics, and overall qualities. The man's main
purpose for connecting with this woman is to have her be a great mother to his
children, and to be a classy, good-looking 'trophy' on his shoulder when he attends
various formal and informal social events. This is the woman that the man will
usually marry, or if not marry, he will keep her around as his long-term romantic
companion.

3) In addition to the woman who is the designated 'good girl,' the man will have one
or more additional women in his life whose purpose is to obey all of his sexual
requests, fulfill all of his sexual fantasies, and behave like a total 'kinky freak' or
'personal slut' in the bedroom. The man has no interest in being monogamous with
any of these women, or allowing them to interact with his children, his close friends,
or other relatives and family members. The man interacts with these women
primarily, if not exclusively, when he desires uninhibited sex.

In this article, I want to highlight four women who each provided me with feedback
about how being in a marriage or a relationship with a man who suffers from the
Madonna / Whore complex has left them feeling romantically and sexually frustrated.
The women from the 'good girl' category are going to become frustrated for at least
two reasons: a) their husbands or long-term boyfriends are cheating on them with
other women, and b) their husband or boyfriend has not made pleasing them and
satisfying them in bed a top priority.

The women from the 'kinky-girl-on-the-side' category also tend to become frustrated
once they realize that the man they are having sex with is never, ever, going to leave
his wife or break up with his long-term girlfriend to be with them.

Below are comments and feedback I have received from four women who fall into
the 'frustrated good girl' category.

[Note: While some first names are real, other first names have been changed in
order to allow the women to remain anonymous; also some comments have been
slightly modified and/or paraphrased for grammatical purposes]

Name: LaTonia G.

Past article that resonated with her the most: Men will usually cheat as long as
there are women who offer them the opportunity

Situation: Was married for ten years; Husband cheated on her with professional
Call Girls and Erotic Escorts; Husband loved to watch porn more than engage
in sexual relations with her; Now divorced

Comments: "Alan, many of your articles tend to cause me a lot of emotional pain
when I read them. Your articles have so much raw truth in them. Particularly when
you speak of the concept of the Madonna-Whore Complex. I believe my ex-husband
suffered from that complex. He always treated me like his elegant queen. His good
girl. I loved it at first, but then I found our sex life getting worse and worse and worse
over the years of our marriage. He got to a point where he barely wanted to have sex
with me at all. If I say so myself, I am a good looking woman. Men flirt with me all of
the time. My husband reached a point where he almost treated me more like his
sister or his daughter than his wife. The worst was when I found out that he was
spending money that we did not have on high-priced prostitutes and call girls. On top
of that, I would find links on his computer to all sorts of Internet porn sites.

We tried marriage therapy, but in the long run, that did not solve any of our
problems. Our divorce was finalized about eighteen months ago. A part of me still
loves him. He never physically or verbally abused me at all. He was not even really a
bad person per se. He was just a victim of that Madonna-Whore Complex you
frequently speak of. He never wanted to look at me as a 'sex companion.' He said he
never wanted me to behave in a 'slutty' manner with him. Sometimes I miss him, but
I know our divorce was best for both of us."

Alan's response: Yes LaTonia, based on the feedback you provided to me, your ex-
husband definitely suffered from the effects of the Madonna / Whore Complex. Your
former spouse did not want you to behave in any sort of 'kinky' or 'erotically
uninhibited' manner. That is usually one of the first signs. He wanted you to be his
"personal good girl." Do not ever give in to the temptation to reconcile with him.
99.9% chance, he is never going to change. I am very sorry to hear that your
marriage did not work out for you.

Advice to other women reading this: Anytime your husband or long-term

companion seems to enjoy your companionship much more non-sexually than he
does sexually, that is the first sign that your spouse or companion suffers from the
effects of the Madonna / Whore Complex, and more-than-likely, he has a mistress or
on-the-side woman satisfying his sexual urges and needs.

Name: Cynthia W.

Past article that resonated with her the most: The history of 'casual' sex: feminists
wanted sexual freedom ... and they got it

Situation: Has been married twice (once for eight years and a second time for
six years); first husband cheated on her with women from his place of work,
and even a friend/acquaintance of his wife; second husband had two
mistresses; Now feels very jaded toward men

Comments: "Mr. Currie, I have to tell you that your articles are refreshingly real and
candid. When a girlfriend first had me read one of your articles, I perceived you as
one of those womanizer types who was always trying to encourage men to take
advantage of women sexually, but as I read more and more of your articles, I realize
now that you look out for both sexes.

I am now forty-eight years of age, and I do not think I will ever get married again. I
simply do not trust men. I have four beautiful children (three children from my first
marriage and one child from my second marriage), and I am very thankful to God
that they are all healthy and well adjusted.

I have never cheated on any of my husbands (although the opportunities were

there!), but both of my former husbands cheated on me. One cheated with a woman
who I once considered to be a friend of mine. You once said in a previous article of
yours that men rarely cheat with women who are more prudish than their wife or
girlfriend. I truly believe that now.

You see, my parents both raised me to be what you would call 'the proverbial good
girl.' I always made good grades in high school and college, I am very active in the
community with a number of different organizations, and I attend a place of worship
regularly, etc. I met my first husband in college and we got married when I was
twenty-four years old. He made good money, and I was primarily a stay-at-home
mother. Financially, I have no criticism of my first husband. He took very good care
of me and our children. No complaints there.

Our sex life though was anything but stellar. Anytime I wanted to 'let my hair down'
and become freakier with him, he would get angry and turned off. He would say, 'Are
you fu**ing around on me?? Are you a ho to other men??' Sometimes I would cry
because I would be so hurt at his accusations. I loved this man. I never once
cheated on him. Yet, anytime I suggested we do anything that was kinky or a bit
freaky, he accused me of cheating.
Then, I later found out that HE was the one who was cheating on me! The nerve of
him. Later, we divorced, and a year or two later, I met my second husband. I really
thought he was a good man. He went to church regularly, and carried himself very
well. Two years into our marriage, our sex life started to become more and more
erratic. He would just 'go through the motions,' but I could tell he wasn't really into
having sex with me. A year or so later, I found out he had a mistress. Then I started
receiving e-mail messages from another woman claiming to be a mistress of his.

Sure enough, he and I ended up divorcing after just under six years of marriage. I
really believe that both of my husbands experienced that Madonna / Whore Complex
you spoke of in your articles. They married me so that I could be their good girl, but
they wanted to have sex with tramps on the side. I am hurt beyond measure. I think I
will remain by myself for years to come."

Alan's response: Cynthia, I am so sorry to hear of the emotional pain that you
suffered in both of your marriages. Many men can give off the outward appearance
of being monogamy-minded and having good moral character, but for many men,
that is merely a facade. Many men want to "have their cake and eat it too." They
want a loyal 'good girl' type to be their main woman, and they want more
promiscuous and uninhibited women to be their mistresses and on-the-side women.
The thing to remember is not all men are like this. Stay positive and optimistic, and
God will place a truly good man in your path.

Advice to other women reading this: Just because a man has a good job, is
financially stable, and speaks well, does not necessarily mean that he is a 'good
man.' I know many men who have cheated on their wives who were educated,
intelligent, articulate, and even regularly attended church. You have to take time to
carefully examine the moral character and integrity of the men you are about to enter
into a long-term relationship with or marriage.

Name: Paula R.

Past article that resonated with her the most: Examining the men who allow their
female companions to enjoy sex with other men -and- Once a prude gets
'turned out,' there usually is no going back

Situation: Was married for twelve years; former husband persuaded her to
engage in 'swinging' and 'couple swapping,' but then later labeled her a 'ho'
and a 'slut,' and divorced her. Now, by her own admission, she has become
semi-promiscuous with younger men and never wants to be married again

Comments: "First of all, ever since I listened to your show, The Erotic
Conversationalist, I have been a fan of yours. I listened to Episode #6 with
Ambrosia Cumming, and a lot of what she said rang true with me. A few weeks later,
you and I became Facebook friends, and I started reading your Examiner.com
articles.

Some background on me: I was married for a little over twelve years. Before I met
my former husband, I was what most men would call 'sexually conservative.' I never
watched porn, I never did anything kinky, and I had only had sex with one other man
prior to meeting my husband.

Alan, did you see a Spike Lee movie by the name of School Daze? In that movie,
one of the characters told his girlfriend, 'If you love me, you will have sex with one of
my fraternity's pledges.' Then, after she fulfilled his request, he dumped her. Well,
much to my embarrassment that is what happened in my marriage.

It started with me and my husband watching porn together. I made a lighthearted

comment about how 'huge' one of the porn star's penis was. All of the sudden, my
ex-husband says, 'So ... I don't have enough meat for you, huh?' I told him that I was
just making a lighthearted comment. I never thought he would feel insulted.

Next thing I know, he says, 'I bet you want to have sex with a guy who has a bigger
d*ck than me, don't you?' I said, 'No honey! You are all I need, and all I want!! I
promise!!' Weeks later, he says, 'I want you to come to a party with me.'

The party we attended turned out to be what is known as a 'swingers' party for
married couples. Even though all of the couples at this party were married, they were
having sex with each other's husbands and wives. I felt horribly uncomfortable, but
my ex-husband kept telling me to relax and have fun. He told me he was going to
select a man for me to have sex with. I told him that I did not want to have sex with
any of the men there. Then, he became very forceful and demanded that I have sex
with at least one guy before we left the party.

So, me being the obedient and dutiful wife, I reluctantly went along with my
husband's demands. Later, four of us went into a bedroom together. Me, my ex-
husband, a guy I will call 'Joe,' and Joe's wife. Joe started kissing me, and making
out with me. Next thing I know, Joe was performing oral sex on me. I became
aroused. Then, Joe started having intercourse with me. Now admittedly, Joe was
more 'well-endowed' than my husband, but I was not dissatisfied with my husband's
size at all. Once I started moaning, my husband yelled out, 'I knew it! I knew you
loved men who were bigger than me!!' Then, for the next few weeks and months, he
basically started forcing me to have sex with different men. Most of them were
married, and all of them were more well-endowed than my husband. Just about all of
them were part of a local swingers club.

I only indulged because I thought this would save our marriage, not ruin it. You
asked in one of your articles, 'can you turn a ho into a housewife?' Well, what my
husband did was turn a good housewife into what he later called a 'ho.' I didn't even
recognize myself anymore. I will not plead innocent to all charges. Soon, I became
addicted to having sex with new and different well-endowed men who knew how to
please and satisfy me. Before we got divorced, I started seeing many of the men
from the swingers club behind my husband's back.

Now that I am divorced, I do not even engage in monogamous sex any longer. Most
of my sex partners are ten-to-fifteen years younger than me, and they love satisfying
me in bed. Even though I still do not consider myself a 'ho' or a 'slut,' I will reluctantly
go ahead and embrace those labels. I enjoy my sex life. I have my ex-husband's
jealous insecurities to thank for awakening a new feeling of sexual liberation. You
can say that my ex-husband 'turned me out.'

All I have to say to your male readers is this: watch what you ask for, because you
just might get it."

Alan's response: Wow. And this all started from watching a porn movie together?
Wow. Here is the reality of many men: A lot of men's egos and self-esteem are
directly connected to their penis. It is simply a sad fact for a good number of men.
For many men, the last thing they want to hear their wife or girlfriend express is a
compliment of another man's physique, and more specifically, another man's penis.
When you complimented the male porn star's penis, in your ex-husband's mind, that
was like saying he could not satisfy you as well as a man with a longer and/or thicker
penis. Based on your feedback, your ex-husband's egotistical insecurities got the
best of him.

Advice to other women reading this: Before you marry a man, or enter into a long-
term monogamous relationship with a man, you should take time to carefully
examine if he is an extremely jealous, possessive, egotistically insecure type. If he
is, you are asking for nothing but problems and 'drama.' I would steer away from
men like this at all costs. These are the types of men that have the highest potential
to become verbally, emotionally, and physically abusive.

Secondly, never allow a boyfriend or husband to 'force' you to do something that you
do not want to do. Even if you are an 'obedient, submissive' type, you should never
compromise your morals, values, and principles in order to make a relationship or
marriage work. Walk away from that marriage or relationship.

Name: Sheree M.

Past article that resonated with her the most: "Blurred Lines" is the ideal song to
describe today's sexually duplicitous woman -and- Blunt truth tellers are
slowly becoming a rare species in modern day society

Situation: Was married for two-and-a-half years, has been divorced for four
years; former husband went into a 'funk' after his brother died, and he became
emotionally and sexually 'distant' with her. Her ex-husband cheated on her
with a woman from his hometown. Now, she is currently single and enjoying
life, but she is a wee bit frustrated by the high number of dishonest and
sexually impatient men as well as the high number of (single) women who are
willing to jump in bed relatively quickly with men who they are not married to
or in a relationship with

Comments: "Truthfully, I had never heard of you until I started reading some of your
articles recently and I felt the urge to respond after reading at least two of them. I
read the article on 'Blurred Lines' and the one on 'Blunt Truth Tellers.' I dont usually
comment on Internet articles as I dont have time for ignorant responses.
I hate the fact that society now thinks that it is improper or abnormal to be frank and
candid with others. Unfortunately, the society we now live in, allows for insincerity
and dishonesty to run rampant ... even in the simplest of things.

I believe with every fiber of my being that we women are the reason that men have
changed in their treatment toward us. Example, if I don't give into a man's sexual
advances rather quickly, he knows that there are at least 20 other women waiting in
line to give him what he wants due to their desperation of male companionship. So
with that, why on earth would he wait around for someone like me who wants to take
things very slow? I am not the type of woman who just jumps in bed with a man
within a few days or a couple of weeks after I meet him.

I have said over and over again that change only happens with change and nothing
changes if nothing changes. So if women want men to change, we need to first
change our behavior. We need to start first with loving ourselves and appreciate who
we are by ourselves. Take time to learn who we truly are and make changes to
become better individuals from the inside out. True beauty emanates from deep
within.

When we start to learn who we are, we would start realizing that our desperation for
a man to make us whole starts to actually diminish. Our thoughts change, even our
speech changes, and we start realizing that it is okay to be by ourselves indefinitely
and that we don't have to sell ourselves short just to say we have a man. In fact in
our learning, we start to learn our purpose. When a person starts to know their
purpose, something starts to switch in the brain and less tolerance is developed for
foolishness, negativity, manipulation and lying.

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of how Jesus would be considered in

today's society. I am a Christian and I have always shared with others that if we
really pay attention to the Bible and what Jesus said, we would realize how brutally
honest and frank he was. Most would probably say that he was 'dissing' people. He
was not a Namby Pamby or wimpy type as many in society try to insinuate. The thing
is, He is truth and He always said it without apology and always with love.

I am upfront with people I meet and with everything I do, I show who I am and what I
stand for. I have realized that it is hard for most people to grasp this concept. Truth is
not relative, truth is truth. Truth cannot be and should not be sugarcoated. I believe
that the truth can be spoken with love, but people are so used to being lied to that
when someone speaks truth, it shocks them and leaves them feeling offended or
uncomfortable.

I have standards and when I share my standards with men for example, one of two
things happen; they either leave after letting their intentions be known, or they linger,
thinking that I will modify or compromise my standards in order to accommodate
them, and then they leave after they realize that I will stay true to who I am and what
I am about. As I type, I laugh, because its humorous to see this in action. Thank you
Alan for sharing YOUR TRUTH with me and your other readers."

Alan's response: Thank you for finding my articles Sheree, and thank you for taking
the time to share your feedback with me. This is much appreciated.
So, what it sounds like your saying is, you have harsh criticisms about the idea of
both premarital sex in general, and more specifically, the idea of short-term non-
monogamous 'casual' sex. Am I correct?

The reality Sheree is that we live in a different society from my parents' generation
and your parents' generation. Most women I converse with these days have very
little, if any desire to 'wait until marriage' to have sex for the first time. Those days
are long gone.

Matter of fact, if you were to read one of my previous articles, I once took a survey in
preparation for an episode of my talk radio podcast program, and would you
believe that more men informed me that they would be willing to wait until marriage
to have sex for the first time than there were women who expressed the same
sentiments.

You and I 100% agree on the love of honesty and a strong disdain for dishonesty. I
hate liars and blatant manipulators. I am honest with every woman I interact with
romantically and sexually, and I expect the same type of honesty from them. In my
opinion, dishonesty combined with manipulative 'head games' has done more to
destroy romantic relationships between men and women than being 'kinky' or
'promiscuous' has.

I am sorry that your marriage did not work out. I wish you nothing but the best as you
continue to move on with your life.

Advice to other women reading this: I do not consider every woman who has sex
outside the context of marriage as "not having any standards." If a woman knows
what she wants, and says what she wants, I have no criticisms or judgments against
her whatsoever.

Personally, I am more critical of the women who 'pretend' to be prudish, when they
know deep-down that they are kinky and/or promiscuous, than those women who are
openly kinky and promiscuous. For the latter, I respect the fact that they 'own' their
sexuality and make no apologies for it.

Conclusion:

Many men in society suffer, to one degree or another, from the effects of the
Madonna / Whore Complex. As mentioned before in previous articles, some men
can handle a woman being the 'good girl in the streets and kinky freak in-between
the sheets,' but other men cannot handle both personas existing in the same body.

In the 21st Century, even many women are taking on characteristics of the Madonna
/ Whore Complex. I have actually met women who have a 'good guy' as their
husband, who they barely have sex with, and then they have one or more men 'on
the side' who satisfy them in bed. I guess what's good for the goose is good for the
gander.

If any other man or woman wants to provide me with feedback on one or more of my
past articles, you may do so by writing me.
Feedback: Women defend Beta males &
Men debate if they can be honest with
women
Did women think I held back on harshly criticizing Elliot Rodger? Did women believe
that Examiner.com Columnist Alan Roger Currie was 'too hard' on men who are
categorized as 'Beta' males? Did women agree with my distinction between a
'feminist' and a 'misandrist?' What did women think of my 'alternative storylines' for
the feature-film, Fifty Shades of Grey? Do most men feel as though they have to lie
and mislead women in order to get them in bed?

Those questions shall be answered as I now present you with my 16th Edition
of Feedback from Readers. As most of my long-time readers know, I usually feature
feedback I have received from my male and female readers after every five-to-seven
articles that have been published for this column. Since my last installment of
Feedback from Readers, I have had five articles and one movie trailer review. Most
of the feedback I received this time was from women, but I did receive feedback from
a number of men regarding my article about Maurice Kain Carter's controversial
video.

[Note: Some of the first names have been changed for the sake of anonymity, and
many questions and/or comments may have been edited, condensed or
paraphrased to some degree in order to either save space or correct spelling and
grammatical errors]

Email feedback in response to the article, Being a virgin was not the only thing
that caused Elliot Rodger's killing spree

From Francesca O.:

"It appears that you did not even take the time to read the Elliot Rodger's Manifesto
prior to writing your disturbing article.

The problem was NOT that Rodgers was 'too nice' to women, but rather the problem
was that he never even developed the confidence or courage to even approach a
woman and initiate a conversation with one. Your article made it sound like it was
women's fault that Rodger committed murder and then suicide. Rodgers never had
the guts to put himself in a position to be rejected by women. He just stayed to
himself, and then got angry when none of the women around him made the first
move and initiated a conversation with him FIRST!! This man (Rodgers) was a racist,
a misogynist, and an arrogant a**hole with a sense of entitlement.

All your commentary about Rodgers being 'too nice' to women is CRAP. All of my
former boyfriends were intelligent and 'nice' to me, and all of my friends and family
members loved them! You are a complete JERK for writing the article that you did.
None of your points were valid."
Alan Roger Currie's response: Actually Francesca, you did express at least one
criticism toward me that I will now agree was a valid one. I had not read Elliot
Rodgers' 'Manifesto' before The Examiner.com published my article about him. I
expressed my commentary based on an excerpt of a video showing Rodgers making
the comment, "I was always nice to women." After the article was published, I did
read where Rodgers admitted that he had never even approached a woman of
interest (what I refer to as a 'Mode Three Timid'). If you listen to this podcast
about Rodgers, you will hear me very much harshly criticizing his behavior.

That acknowledgement aside, I still stand by my comments criticizing men being

guilty of being 'too nice' to women. Read this old article of mine, and then we can
discuss and debate from there. Exhibiting behavior that is too lenient, too fawning,
too accommodating, and too acquiescent and deferential toward women is just as
bad as avoiding approaching women and failing to initiate a conversation with them.
Thank you for your honest feedback though young lady! Much appreciated.

Email feedback in response to the article, Romantically and sexually frustrated

Beta males are becoming a danger to society

From Bernice H.:

"Your article attacking men who you classify as 'beta' males was totally opinionated,
and even socially irresponsible.

There is nothing wrong with a man being nice, sweet, caring, and considerate with
women. I have literally dozens of male friends who fall into this category. I can see
myself being friends with these men for the rest of my entire life!! Yes, some of them
are shy and introverted, but I have never associated their lack of social skills with
being misogynistic or being a 'danger' to women.

In my opinion, it is these overly aggressive, highly sexual 'alpha' males who are the
problem. These men do nothing but treat women like sex objects as opposed to fully
developed human beings. I have dated a number of these types, and each time, I
regretted it. Just two months ago, I broke up with an 'alpha' male type because he
kept trying to persuade me to have a threesome with another woman. If that
behavior is representative of an 'alpha' male, I will take a 'beta' male any day over
those alpha losers."

Alan Roger Currie's response: First, the reader named 'Francesca' accused me of
"taking it easy" on a lifelong Beta male like Elliot Rodger, now you are suggesting
that I am being too harsh. Damned if you criticize Beta males ... damned if you take it
easy on 'em.

Bernice, did you even read your own comments? In your attempt to 'defend' Beta
male types, you exposed the very problem with this category of men: Not once did
you mention that you have recently dated and/or had sex with one of your beloved
Beta males. You implied that your primary interaction with Beta male types has been
strictly 'platonic' in nature. On the other hand, even though you harshly criticized the
Alpha male types, you acknowledged that you have dated quite a few of them and
have exchanged orgasms with these types.
That is the very problem with Beta male types. The vast majority of women 'like'
them, but they have very little if any interest in sharing their company in a romantic
and/or sexual manner. The best scenario that the typical Beta male can hope for is
being in a woman's dreaded 'Platonic Friend Only Zone,' which some would argue is
better than receiving no attention at all from women.

Personally? I'd rather be an Alpha male who receives nothing but harsh criticisms
and insults from women, but still manages to have sex with them, than to be a Beta
male who shares the company of dozens of women on a weekly basis, but all of
those women are strictly platonic friends only. Thank you for your feedback though
Bernice!

Email feedback in response to the article, Men should start making the distinction
between 'feminists' and 'femisandrists'

From Kayla T.:

"I am not sure if I read your article correctly, but did you essentially defend men who
are 'sexists' and 'chauvinists?' If so, shame on you Mr. Currie!!

As far as I am concerned, a chauvinist, a misogynist, and a sexist are one in the

same. All three of these types of men believe men have more to offer women than
women have to offer men, and all of them are guilty of objectifying women and
treating them like they are sexual 'play toys' for men.

I do not look at the three as being uniquely different at all. I look at those terms as
representing three aspects of the same disrespectful personality. And as far as a
woman being labeled a 'feminist' or a 'misandrist,' who really cares? A man calling a
woman a 'misandrist' is like a racist Caucasian person calling a Black person who
criticizes and insults White people a 'racist.' There is no such thing as Black-on-
White racism. At least, not in my opinion."

Alan Roger Currie's response: To say that I 'defended' men who are 'chauvinists'
and 'sexists' is a stretch. I simply clarified the difference between the three terms.
Nothing more, nothing less.

For you to say that the terms 'chauvinist,' 'misogynist,' and 'sexist' are synonymous
with one another would be like me suggesting that the terms 'feminist,' 'lesbian,' and
'misandrist' are all synonymous with one another. The reality is, they are not. A
woman can be a feminist without ever stepping into the territory of lesbianism and/or
misandry. Same with a man. A man can be a chauvinist and/or a sexist without ever
exhibiting the bitterness, hate, and resentment toward women that a true
misogynist would.

Also, just because a man enjoys engaging in short-term and/or non-monogamous

sex with a woman ... and this same man loves and appreciates women's beauty and
sex appeal ... does not mean that he deserves to be labeled a 'chauvinist,' a
'misogynist,' and/or a 'sexist.' How can a man love women's companionship
and hate their companionship at the same time? If hard pressed, I might concede
that just about all men who are 'chauvinists' are also 'sexists' ... just like I would
probably concede that just about all women who are 'misandrists' are also
'feminists' ... but generally speaking, I think all three labels have their unique
differences.

When Christmas rolls around, I will make sure and give you a dictionary and a
thesaurus as a gift! (P.S. If a Black man was a multi-millionaire, and that same Black
man owned a number of apartment buildings ... and this Black man regularly denied
housing to Asian people, Caucasian people, and Hispanic people, then yes ... this
African-American man could validly be labeled a 'racist')

Email feedback in response to the article, Maurice Kain Carter: Creating dating-
related satire that many men take seriously

From DaShawn K.:

"Mr. Currie, I read your book 'Mode One,' and I have to just be blunt with you:
Maurice Kain Carter's video proved that women need to be lied to in order to get
them in bed (for casual sex). You know what I'm sayin'?

I know you're going to try to argue with me and further promote your books, but the
reality is, you cannot just walk up to a woman you're attracted to and say, 'I
approached you because I want to fu** you silly,' and have that woman give you a
positive reaction. You know what I'm sayin'?

You have to approach a woman, talk about stupid, silly sh** for at least a half-hour or
longer, and then you have to make her feel like you are really into her. Then, once
you get the booty, you just leave that ho alone. You know what I'm sayin'?

I'm not hatin' on you at all. I'm just trying to keep it real. Peace out!"

Alan Roger Currie's response: Okay young brother ... I feel you. I do know what
you're sayin'. Fo sho.

Check this out dawg, I was watching this video of this woman who was really obese.
This woman said she took this "miracle pill": that caused her to lose twenty-five
pounds in one month. I was like, "Yo! I gotta get me that pill, because if she said she
lost that many pounds in four weeks ON VIDEO, it must be true!! You know what I'm
sayin'?!?"

Let me ask you something G ... how does Maurice Kain Carter know that those
women were heterosexual, and not lesbians? Hmmmm. Marinate on that one bro.
How did Maurice Kain Carter know that these women were not already sexually
active with a man who was their boyfriend or casual lover? Marinate on that one too
young brother. How did Maurice Kain Carter know that all of the women he
approached were not practicing premarital abstinence and committing themselves to
being celibate before marriage? Marinate on that question as well. You know what
I'm sayin'?

If I put you in a room with five lesbians, and you attempted to lie to them and
'pretended' like you were 'getting to know them,' do you think you would get one of
them to have sex with you days or weeks later? If I put you in a social environment
with ten women who already were married, romantically involved, or simply sexually
content with at least one man who they have been having sex with for the last year
or two, do you think your lies and manipulative 'head games' would cause you to get
one or more of these women in bed? If you became a member of a church where all
of the unmarried women were practicing premarital abstinence, and they were
genuinely committed to remaining celibate until they get married, do you really think
that your "seductive charms" would put one or more of these women under a
'hypnotic spell' and provoke them to break down and give in to your sexual desires,
interests, and intentions?

I think not young brother. My best guess is that you would end up wasting a lot of
time, effort, energy, and even money without having sex with any of these women.

As far as I know, Maurice Kain Carter approached three or four women in a shopping
mall. THREE or FOUR WOMEN. And that extremely small sample size is supposed
to represent ALL WOMEN? Puhleaze. Give me a break. You know what I'm sayin'?

For every woman in my adult life who has reciprocated my desire for same-day sex
and/or my desire for short-term non-monogamous sex, I have probably had at six or
seven women reject me. AT LEAST.

Now if Young Brother Kain Carter was to make a documentary that covered a span
of three-to-five years, and it showed him approaching a bare minimum of fifty women
(preferably one-hundred women or more) ... and he first took at least a minute or two
to find out if these women were a) single and unattached, b)heterosexual, c) at least
halfway attracted to him, and d) currently sexually active, or at minimum, these
women have a positive attitude toward the idea of engaging in sex with a man in
general ... and all of the women in the documentary STILL rejected him, then he
would have a valid case for debating the concept of being upfront and
straightforwardly honest with women.

At the risk of being a bit 'boastful,' I have engaged in short-term and/or non-
monogamous 'casual' sex with a high number of women without ever 'lying' to them,
misleading them, or investing a lot of time, effort and money into pursuing their
sexual companionship. I have even had sex with some women in less than thirty
minutes after I first made their acquaintance. I know many of my male friends,
acquaintances, and even clients and students of mine who have also had (casual)
sex with women within less than 48 hours after they first made that woman's
acquaintance, and they accomplished this without expressing any blatant lies or
engaging in any type of manipulative 'head games' with women.

The bottom line is this: Just because a woman expressed to you that she has no
interest in having sex with you does not mean that this woman wants to be lied to or
misled. Would you want a woman to 'pretend' like she is really attracted to you just
so she can motivate you to buy her a free ticket to a Drake concert or aJay-Z and
Beyonc concert? No ... you would not. You know what I'm sayin'? Yep. You do
know what I'm sayin'.
Email feedback in response to the article, "Fifty Shades of Grey" movie trailer
offers no intriguing storyline for most men

From Sylvia M.:

"Alan, you know I enjoy most of your articles. I was entertained by your 'five
alternative storylines' for the upcoming film, 'Fifty Shades of Grey,' but I could not
help but to feel like you left out one alternative storyline that I also believe would be
quite interesting.

What if ... instead of having Christian Grey being the one who erotically enlightens
and 'corrupts' the naive and sexually inexperienced Anastasia Steele, you have
Anastasia be a woman in her thirties or forties, and she is the one who 'turns out' the
young, naive, and sexually inexperienced Christian? She ends up being both his
lover and his teacher! Every woman who has sex with him afterwards would know
that a real woman taught him how to REALLY make love to a woman. I would pay
money to see that storyline! Do you think the men would go for that?"

Alan Roger Currie's response: I very much agree that a woman (particularly an
older woman) is capable of teaching and 'turning out' a (younger) man. Trust me ... I
speak from experience (smirk and a wink).

I think a good number of men would watch the film if it had that alternative storyline.
Especially if they felt they would 'learn' something of value. My 'added twist' would be
that at first, Anastasia is the one who is erotically dominating Christian ... but then,
toward the end, he turns the tables on her and she ends up being dominated like no
(younger) man has ever dominated her before. I would pay money to see THAT film!

If you, as a reader, ever want to offer me feedback on one or more of my articles,

you can do so below (comments section), on Twitter, on Facebook, or viaEmail.

As always, thank you for taking time to read my articles!

21st Century Dating : "New
School" dating has replaced
"Old School' traditions
Name one thing about life today that is still exactly the same as it was 100 years ago
or 200 years ago. I will give you five-to-ten minutes to think about that.

Did we have microwave ovens or cable-television 100 years ago? Desktop or laptop
computers to use at home? No.

A small part of me respects the idea of maintaining a handful of "Old School"

traditions, as long as those traditions provide some type of value and benefit to those
who are willing to subscribe to them.

The reality is, most aspects of our everyday life are far different than they were 50
years ago, 100 years ago, or 200 years ago. The vast majority of us use the Internet,
whereas prior to 1990, very few if anyone outside of the U.S. government even knew
what the internet even was.

Same sense of "everything is changing" applies to dating and relationships.

There was a time when just about all romantic relationships between a man and a
woman were expected to lead to marriage. In today's society, that is no longer the
case. For starters, in the 21st Century, many men are dating other men and many
women are dating other women. Even among heterosexuals, there are many women
who are thirty-five years of age or older who still have yet to get married and have no
children while many men wait until they are forty years of age or older to get married,
if they get married at all.

Here is a summary of some of the differences:

Old School Dating

Before the days of birth control methods being used and premarital sex being
considered "acceptable," the vast majority of women in society waited until they got
married in order to engage in sexual relations with a man for the first time.

Given that premarital sex as well as non-monogamous sex was totally discouraged
and frowned upon, here was the basic structure of "Old School Dating" rituals:

1. Men and women became acquainted with one another, or were

introduced to each other by a mutual friend
2. Men and women conversed with each other, and identified common
interests, morals, values, and ethics

3. Men and women identified if their personalities were compatible enough

to continue dating

4. Once they identified that their personalities were compatible, and that
they had a lot of the same interests and life goals, the couple would then
categorize themselves as "going steady" (a simple term meaning that
they now were in an exclusively committed relationship, and that no other
member of the opposite sex could invite them out on a date any longer)

5. No sex was involved when 'going steady,' although the couple would
"make out" heavily (i.e., engage in just about everything but oral sex or
intercourse)

6. If the man was gainfully employed and financially self-sufficient (or at

least, on his way to being in that category), and he failed to identify any
"red flags" about his steady girlfriend, at some point within two years or
so, the man would ask his girlfriend's mother and father for their approval
to propose marriage to his girlfriend

7. If the parents (and particularly, the father) approved, the man would then
ask his girlfriend to marry him

8. The engagement period would last an average of six-to-eighteen months,

and then the couple got married in a public, formal ceremony known as a
"wedding" where they invited all of their close friends and family members

9. Finally, the married couple at some point in their marriage decided to

have one or more children

Of course, there might have been "exceptions" to this highly regarded tradition prior
to 1960, but those who engaged in those 'exception' type activities generally kept
their sexual and relationship activities extremely private and discreet in order to
prevent bringing shame and embarrassment to their families and friends.

New School Dating

Beginning with the 1960s, most women in society began slowly but surely warming
up to the idea of engaging in sex with a man outside the context of marriage. Later,
women even began having sex with men who they were not 'going steady' with (i.e.,
what is now known as 'casual' sex). Note: This is the BIGGEST
FACTOR that ultimately changed dating forever

That very important factor above by itself led to a plethora of changes in the dating
scene.

Now men and women engage in one or more of these many types of sexual
relationships:
 One-night stands

Weekend flings

"Booty Call" / "F**k Buddy" relationships

"Friends-with-Benefits" relationships

Sugar Daddy-Sugar Baby arrangements

Swinging / Couple Swapping / (Polyamorous) "Family" or Group Sex

Cuckolded Husband-Wife-Dominant 'Bull' arrangements

Master-Sub or Dominatrix-Sub arrangements

Pimp-and-his-stable-of-Whores arrangements

"Boyfriend-Girlfriend" relationships that do not necessarily lead to

marriage or the couple living together

Living Together (without being married)

Husband-Mistress/Side Piece relationships or Wife-Side Piece/The

"Other Man" Lover (i.e., adultery or cheating)

Polyamorous or "Open" marriages

There are probably even a handful more of various types of non-traditional

relationships that can be listed that fall outside the context of a traditional "Husband-
Wife" relationship.

I. What all of this "New School Dating" means for women

Did you know that you can buy chicken wings at Pizza Hut?

Now if you worked for Pizza Hut, and a man came into the restaurant and asked, "Do
you serve cheeseburgers?" would you fly off the handle and start cursing at this
person, and offer comments like, "You are SO DISRESPECTFUL. I cannot BELIEVE
you even ASKED me that!!! This is a PIZZA restaurant. This is not McDonald's or
Burger King!!! What an A**HOLE!!! What a JERK!!!!" A bit of an "overreaction,"
wouldn't you say?

What about if you were a woman who worked at Hooters instead, and a man came
into the restaurant and asked, "Do you serve pizza?" Again ... would you become
agitated or irate, and start dressing him down in response to that question?

As a woman, you need to stop behaving as though you are "offended" or "insulted"
when a man makes comments and/or asks you questions in order to find out what is
on your particular "menu" as a potential sex companion. If we were living in 1904 or
even 1954, I might give you a "pass" for having an 'angry' reaction to men who
approach you with a desire to engage in short-term and/or non-monogamous sex
with you. But in 2014? Nope. Instead of "overreacting," you need toget real.

Dating for both men and women was fairly easy when there was only "one entre on
the menu." Now, you have more than a dozen options on the 'menu.' You
understand now why dating is so challenging (and many times, frustrating) here in
2014?

Very few men these days only approach women with the desire to find a future wife
and/or their next long-term (monogamous) "girlfriend." For most men in society
today, women in those categories might account for maybe 10-25% of the women
that they approach. The vast majority of men these days want to engage in one or
more of the various types of relationships listed under the category of "New School
Dating."

The women who still subscribe to the "Old School" way of dating are generally
labeled as "prudish 'Good Girls'." Many of the men and women who are still fans of
"Old School" dating methods will also label those women who engage in more
'casual' sex as "sluts" and "whores." Do you really expect those from the "Old School
Dating" faction not to be judgmental and harshly critical of the "New School" way of
dating? If so, you are being naive.

II. What all of this "New School Dating" means for men

Men, read the last paragraph above again. And again. And again. And again. Did
you do it? Now, read it again ONE MORE TIME.

Why would someone like Maurice Kain Carter or the guy in the video posted at
the top of this article (Brian? Justin? Not sure) naively believe they can just
approach women and immediately ask them to engage in short-term and/or non-
monogamous 'casual' sex within the first 15-20 seconds of the conversation without
keeping in mind what was said in the last paragraph (of the women's section)?

Reality check: Some women are totally committed to still abiding by the rules and
rituals of "Old School Dating," particularly if they are deeply religious or have really
deeply religious parents. Respect to these women. I do not care how 'charming,'
'persuasive,' and/or 'seductive' you believe you are as a man, you are never, ever
going to get these women to engage in premarital sex or casual sex with you (unless
you do the "un-thinkable," and get them drunk or drug them and then date-rape
them; If you choose this route, be prepared for that woman's father, step-father, or
psychotic and protective older brother to find you .... and kill you. End of story).

On the complete opposite end of the spectrum, some women are totally open and
upfront about the fact that they are "free-spirited" and "erotically uninhibited." In other
words, they will make it clear to you that they have no problem engaging in one or
more of the various types of modern-day sexual relationships listed under "New
School Dating." Again, some men (and women) will label these women 'sluts' and
'whores.' The more appropriate label for these women is, "They know what they
want" women. Respect to this group of women as well.
Let's say, 15% of women in society are genuinely "Prudish Good Girl" types (i.e.,
willing to wait until marriage to have sex for the first time), and let us say that roughly
20% of women in society are totally open-minded, free-spirited, and erotically
uninhibited (i.e., willing to engage in just about any type of sexual relationship ....
long-term, short-term, monogamous, non-monogamous, one-on-one, group sex,
etc.)

Men: These two types of women above are going to be the most honest
women you ever interact with in your life.

Some men think that 90-99% of women in society are in the "Prudish Good Girl"
category. And that is why most of their male friends laugh at them, and generally
treat them like they are super naive.

Some men, such as Maurice Kain Carter (a.k.a. "hotdamnirock") and the other
"Whatever Guy" seem to believe that 90-99% of women in society are in the "Totally
Free-Spirited, Uninhibited, and Down to Engage in Kinky Sex with Anyone at Any
Time" category. And that is why Maurice and the Whatever Guy got slapped at least
once (This columnist is twice their age, and has never, ever been slapped).

If the prudish, Old School Dating women are "5s" (on a scale from "1" to "5"), and the
totally open-minded, free-spirited New School Dating women are "1s" (on that same
scale), guess which women are 2s, 3s, and 4s?? This brings me to the most "tricky"
of the three types of women. The "Wholesome Pretenders" and "Erotic
Hypocrites" of the world. A woman who is a "4" is a woman who wants very much to
adhere to the "Old School" rituals of dating, but her raw erotic hormones do not
always agree with her intellectual decisions; A woman who is a "3" is a woman who
wants an "Old School" image and reputation similar to a woman who is a "5," but
behind-closed-doors, she wants the sexual experiences of a woman who is a "1"; A
woman who is a "2" is willing to present a misleading faade to men for at least a few
minutes or an hour or two, but if a man knows how to "read" women, he will quickly
break them down.

2s are going to be easier to seduce into New School Dating casual sex than a 3, but
harder than a 1. 3s will be more likely to agree to engage in a 'weekend fling' with
you than a 4, but it will be more difficult than persuading a 1 or 2. 4s are going to be
the most challenging to convince to engage in some type of short-term and/or non-
monogamous sexual relationship with you, but getting these women to engage in
sex with you outside the context of a 'Husband-Wife' relationship or a long-term
'Boyfriend-Girlfriend' relationship is not at all "impossible."

What happens when you develop the knowledge and wisdom from trial and error to
quickly and effectively identify a woman who is a "2," "3," or "4"? You call up your
agent or publisher, and the conversation goes a bit like THIS (just pretend I had a
literary agent or personal publisher named Jerry Maguire).

Don't be naive young men regarding your interactions with women. Not all women
are "Old School" types. Similarly, don't be arrogantly presumptuous or just flat-out
stupid either. Not each and every woman you meet is going to be down with the
more liberal and free-spirited "New School Dating" type of sexual relationships
either.

P.S. Small favor ... are you on Twitter? If you are single heterosexual man, and you
just finished reading the article, and you GET WHERE I AM COMING FROM, then
please tweet the following (no quotes): "RT Just read @AlanRogerCurrie's Examiner
article (http://bit.ly/ModeOneBehavior) and all I have to say is #ModeOne! #2s3s4s
#WholesomePretenders"

Thank you and enjoy the remainder of your week.

'People Pleasing' is an
addictive vice similar to
alcoholism or drug
addiction
Some addictions that men and women suffer from are very easy to identify. For
example, when someone is an alcoholic or heroin addict, we can usually detect this
from their bizarre and volatile behavior. Even a man who is addicted to internet porn
or video games creates certain behavioral traits that are usually easy to spot.

Arguably the most underrated form of 'addiction' that many people suffer from is
what is known as "people pleasing." Men and women who suffer from this particular
vice tend to feel happy and excited about life one day, and then as quickly as a day
or two later, these same people are feeling grumpy, irritated, and/or sad.

When your self-esteem is constantly dependent on how others treat you, and your
emotional disposition frequently vacillates back and forth between feeling like you
are on 'Cloud Nine' (ecstatic) to feeling dejected, frustrated, and morose, this is
usually the first tell-tale sign that you suffer from "people pleasing" tendencies. Many
of us know men and women we work with, socialize with, and generally come into
contact with who are full-fledged people-pleasers.

At the root of the people-pleaser's problems is an insatiable desire to be 'liked' by

everyone and receive positive reactions and responses from everyone they interact
with socially.

There is nothing wrong with people developing a favorable opinion of you while you
are exhibiting authentic and real behavior toward them and engaging in activities that
you have a genuine interest in and passion for. When the desire to be 'liked'
becomes a problem is when you find yourself exhibiting behavior that is
disingenuous and duplicitous toward others, and you regularly participate in activities
and events that you know deep-down you have very little interest in as a means of
motivating certain friends and acquaintances to flatter you, become more interested
in spending time with you, and shower you with positive comments and reactions.

Once, Comedienne Roseanne Barr was being interviewed on television, and was
asked if she enjoyed being a famous Entertainment Industry celebrity, or if she had
criticisms of the whole idea of being famous and living her life under a media
microscope. Among other comments she expressed, Barr said, "Most people who
want to be famous are usually those who are very egotistically insecure. They have
an insatiable need for constant attention and adulation from others. The desire to be
the center of attention all the time becomes like a drug."
This type of addiction also happens in the world of dating and relationships. There
are many men who rarely behave in the manner that they truly want to with women.
Instead of being real and authentic with women, they become duplicitous and
'pleasantly phony' with women. Why? Because of their desire to be 'liked' by each
and every woman they come in contact with.

A few examples:

- A man who excessively compliments a woman and fawns over her. Is this his
natural behavior? No. This is representative of a man who desperately wants to be
'liked' by this woman and win her favor.

- A man who is very quick to offer to 'wine and dine' a woman he just met, and
frequently offers to spend money on her and buy her a variety of materialistic gifts. Is
this his natural behavior? No. This is representative of a man who is looking to earn
'brownie points' from a woman in response to him being so financially generous with
her; his ultimate hope is that he will be rewarded with this woman's romantic and/or
sexual attention and companionship.

- A man who engages in lengthy conversations with women about subject matter he
has no genuine interest in (e.g., talking with a woman for two hours aboutOlympic
ice skating when this man could care less about ice skating). Is this his natural
behavior? Not at all. This is representative of this man being 'pleasantly phony' with
a woman as a means of provoking her to feel more comfortable in his presence, and
hopefully view him as an entertaining, 'likeable,' and trustworthy gentleman.

Here is the problem with such behavior: people-pleasers are only happy and fun to
be around as long as they are receiving favorable responses and reactions from
others. The minute these types begin to feel criticized, disrespected, insulted, or
taken for granted, they will usually unleash a very 'dark' side of their personality. In
extreme cases, this dark side could result in suicide or violence toward others. At
minimum, this person's personality will suddenly become angry, antagonistic,
insulting, or anti-social and reclusive.

If you are currently a Facebook user, how many times do you get excited when you
make a comment that receives a lot of 'likes?' Similarly, in those instances when you
receive very few if any 'likes' for your photos, comments, and status updates, do you
find yourself feeling dejected, frustrated, or even ticked off? If the answer is 'no,' then
nine times out of ten, you are probably not a 'people pleaser,' but if your response
was, "I hate it when people don't like my stuff on Facebook," then you might be guilty
of being a people-pleaser.

Top 5 general characteristics of a "people-pleaser":

People-pleasers tend to place a high emphasis on being 'liked' by others,

and receiving flattering and favorable responses from others;
experiencing adulation from others becomes like a 'drug' to them

People-pleasers tend to exhibit a high degree of disingenuous and

duplicitous behavior (i.e., their 'public' persona is often much different
 than their 'private' persona) and will often express many insincere
compliments to others just so they can be 'liked' by this person and
maintain their attention and companionship

People-pleasers tend to exhibit a high degree of erratic, moody, or

passive-aggressive behavior when they feel like they are being unfairly
criticized, disliked, disrespected, ignored, or taken for granted; Many
times they go back and forth between feeling extremely happy and
excited to feeling very dejected and frustrated

People-pleasers will engage in a number of activities that really do not

create much enjoyment or satisfaction for themselves just to make their
friends and/or casual acquaintances 'happy'

People-pleasers will usually go out of their way to avoid talking about

anything negative or controversial with others (such as bad health issues,
problems related to personal finances, political issues, or religious
issues); people-pleasers usually stick to discussing subject matter that is
general, lighthearted and positive in nature

People-pleasing may not be as physically self-destructive as say, alcoholism or

substance abuse, but over a period of years, it can definitely have a very negative
effect on one's mental and emotional health. It is simply not healthy to care too much
what other people think of you, and to regularly allow compliments from others to
give you a 'boost' while at the same time allowing criticisms and insults from others
to make you feel like a 'loser.'

Again, if people like you because of your genuine, natural, real behavior ... then you
are okay (in other words, people like you just for being yourself ... even when you are
not really 'trying' to be liked).

But if you are constantly making changes and modifications to various aspects of
your behavior and personality for the sole and specific purpose of wanting to attract
more friends and get more people to like you ... then you need to engage in some
heartfelt self-examination exercises. In very extreme cases, you might need to
consult with a professional psychiatrist or therapist.

When you are constantly giving people the misleading facade that you are 'happy'
about who you are and what you are doing in life ... when the reality is, inside, you
are miserable and depressed ... that is a problem. A major problem.

If you click the Facebook 'like' button above, it will be appreciated. If you choose not
to ...

... well, you get the point.

Being vague and ambiguous
complicates friendships and
relationships ... not sex
We have all heard some variation of this phrase for years: "Once sex is introduced
into a friendship or relationship, things then become 'complicated' between the man
and woman involved." Many men and women - and especially women - believe this
to be true and valid. And for the most part, it is not.

If sex, and sex only, caused all relationships between a man and a woman to
become 'complicated,' then each male client of a street prostitute or professional Call
Girl would find themselves in a number of 'complicated' relationships with the women
who they are paying money to have sex with. That is rarely if ever the case with
professional sex workers. Along the same lines, have you ever heard of a
'complicated' working relationship between an adult film actor and actress in the porn
industry? Doubt it.

The only scenario where one could halfway argue that introducing sexual relations
into the picture will have a tendency to 'complicate' things between a man and a
woman is when the man has one set of long-term and short-term desires, interests
and intentions while the woman involved has a totally different set of long-term and
short-term desires, interests, and intentions.

The most common example of this would be when a man and a woman start out as
'just friends,' and then two or three months into the 'friendship,' the two find
themselves in bed together. The fact that these two just had sex is not what will
cause their 'friendship-turned-intimate' to become 'complicated.' The problem is, this
man and woman failed to discuss specifics prior to engaging in sexual relations with
one another. They both acted impulsively, and now they probably feel a wee bit
awkward when thinking about "where do we go from here?"

Imagine if you were an employee at a hospital, and you saw this unfamiliar doctor
and unfamiliar nurse just walking around in the hospital looking lost. Finally, you
approach them and ask, "May I help you?" One replies, "I just graduated from
medical school, and I figured I'd just come to my local hospital and start work
today." Uhm ... no. Things do not work that way in the health care field. The other
replies, "I just graduated from nursing school, and my best friend works here, so I
made the decision to go ahead and start work here today." Uhm ... no. Again,
employment opportunities with physicians and nurses do not just unfold like this.

Let us examine an even more realistic example. Imagine if you went into a nice
restaurant, and one of the waiters approached you and asked, "So ... what are you in
the mood for?" And you replied, "I am very hungry. I just want some food." The
waiter asked, "Well, for starters, what do you have a taste for? Beef? Chicken?
Seafood?" to which you replied, "Again, I am starving. I just want some food in my
stomach." Things would probably become ... 'complicated' ... in the restaurant until
you decided to become more specific about what type of food you wanted to eat.

Rarely is any interaction between two human beings 'complicated' when the two
people involved know exactly what they want from each other, and this holds true in
the world of dating and relationships.

If "Brian" meets "Linda," and the two just sort of 'hang out' for a few days or a few
weeks, and then all of the sudden, Brian says to Linda, "I would like to engage in a
'friends-with-benefits' relationship with you Linda until one of us finds ourselves in a
long-term monogamous relationship with someone else...," what would be
'complicated' about his proposal? That type of proposal is straight-to-the-point and
very easy to understand. No room for misinterpretation.

Some might argue, "Well what if Brian gets jealous if he finds out that Linda had sex
with some man other than him?" Then that would be Brian's problem, and Brian's
problem alone. A man cannot enter into a 'friends-with-benefits' relationship with a
woman if he knows that he has problems with jealousy and possessiveness. It is
really that simple. Same principle applies to women.

"Well, what if Linda 'catches feelings' and starts becoming emotionally attached to
Brian?" Same general response. A professional athlete knows when he enters into
the National Football League (NFL) or National Basketball Association (NBA) that he
is probably going to develop some tight-knit friendships with many of his teammates.
He also knows that there is a high likelihood that he might be traded to another team
at the drop of a dime.

Same principle applies to women and relationships. Any relationship (even including
marriage) has a fifty percent chance or greater of ending abruptly without any
warning or telltale signs. A woman's 'boyfriend-girlfriend' relationship with a man can
be rock solid during the last two weeks of August, but come the second or third week
of September, that man could run into his ex-girlfriend from three years ago, and the
next thing the woman knows, her boyfriend of eighteen months simply says, "Hey ... I
realized that I am still in love with my ex-girlfriend. Sorry. Okay ... take care." What
can she do ... sue him?

Romantic relationships are not complicated until we as human beings make them
become more 'complicated.' Same with so-called 'friendships' between single men
and women.

Every man and woman involved in any type of relationship ... platonic, romantic, or
purely sexual ... should have at least one conversation amongst themselves where
they specifically spell out what they want from each other. The more specific and
detailed you are with members of the opposite sex about your long-term and short-
term needs, desires, interests, and intentions ... the less 'drama' and 'complications'
you will experience with them in the long-run.

Sex? Or no sex? Do not ever start a platonic friendship with a member of the
opposite sex ASSUMING that this person does not want sex from you. Make them
specifically tell you that they have no interest in the friendship transitioning from a
purely platonic relationship to one with sexual undertones.

Monogamous sexual relationship ... or 'open' (non-monogamous) sexual

relationship? Again ... never ASSUME what your partner is down for. Make them
specifically tell you what type of (sexual) relationship it is they want from you. Even if
they are lying through their teeth. At least if they cheat on you in the future, you can
throw it in their face that they said at one point that they wanted a 'committed'
relationship, and you did nothing but take them on their word.

Long-term and indefinite ... or 'casual fun' for a short, specified period of
time? Some men and women believe that a man and a woman should just 'play
things by ear.' Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Referring back to my analogies about professional
athletes, do you know of any sports agent who just allows their clients to participate
in team activities, and simply 'play things by ear?' Heck no. Any contract between a
professional athlete and a sports team owner is very specific, and in particular, in
regards to how long the contract is valid. Some athletes have a one-year or two-year
contract, while others have a five or six-year contract.

If you as a man know that you are only interested in having sex with a woman for
one-night, one weekend, or one or two months, you should express that to the
woman before you and the woman even think about exchanging orgasms together.
Otherwise, you are asking for potential 'drama' and 'complications' to arise between
you and your sex partner.

Being vague and ambiguous with people is representative of

ineffective interpersonal communication skills. No matter how polite you are, how
articulate you are, how caring and empathetic you are ... if you express your needs,
desires, interests, and intentions to others in a manner that is very vague and
ambiguous, this means you are simply not a good communicator.

Have you ever visited a grocery store and asked one of the employees, "I want to
buy some good-tasting food. What aisle is the good-tasting food in?" Of course not.
You would be drug-tested on the spot. The vast majority of people have a 'grocery
list' written down (or in their heads) of very specific types of food they want to
purchase. In return, the store owner has specific prices on the food items the
customers plan on purchasing. Imagine if there were no price tags on food items,
and you selected a number of food items ... and the cashier said, "Okay Sir / Mam,
that will be $989.32."

Could you validly complain about your purchase total if there were no price tags?
No ... you could not. You would either have to pay the amount the cashier
announced ... or you would have to leave all of the food items there at the store.
Either, or.

Thank goodness for price tags in grocery stores, huh?

Bottom line, sex between a man and a woman does not automatically make any
relationship become 'complicated.'
Dishonest behavior, disingenuous behavior, misleading and manipulative behavior,
as well as a vague and ambiguous style of interpersonal communication is what will
cause any relationship you have with anyone - male or female - to become
undoubtedly 'complicated.'

Choose to make your relationships simple and easy to manage.

The 5 degrees of lying that
affect the LIAR as much as
the ones who were lied to
Admit it. At various points in your life, you have looked someone directly in their eyes
and told them a boldface lie. Human beings lie for a variety of reasons: To impress
others; to entertain others; to protect themselves from danger, harm or harsh
consequences; to put themselves in a position to manipulate and take advantage of
others; to put themselves in a position to 'have their cake and eat it too.'

More specifically, men and women will frequently express a number of lies as it
relates to their interactions with members of the opposite sex. Usually, when one lies
to another, we empathize with the one who is being lied to. Most of the time, we look
at the liar as the one who 'got over' on someone.

What most men and women do not realize is, in the long-run, lying just about
always comes back to 'haunt' the liar.

For the purposes of this article, all lying is going to be divided into five categories ...
from 'least harmful' to 'most harmful.' At least one example will be given of women's
most common lies to men, as well as at least one example of men's lies to women.

Here we go . . .

1) 5th Degree Lies: Lies that are designed to impress people and/or entertain
people ... or, to prevent people from criticizing you or ignoring you.

Comment: The lies in this category are commonly known as "little white lies." Of all
the lies a man or woman can express, these are arguably the least harmful. These
lies are usually motivated by a desire to impress people and/or entertain people, or a
desire to avoid being criticized or ignored by someone who you are attracted to.

Example of a lie in this category that is usually told by men: A man telling a
woman that he earns a six-figure salary (i.e., $100,000 or more per year), when he
really earns somewhere between $85,000 - $95,000 per year.

Example of a lie in this category that is usually told by women: A woman telling
a man that she has never, ever indulged in short-term and/or non-monogamous
'casual sex,' when in reality, she has engaged in at least two or three one-night
stands and weekend flings in her life.

How 5th degree lies hurt the ones who are being lied to: These lies have the
potential to make people feel 'naive' or 'stupid' for perceiving the things you said to
them as totally truthful and valid.
How 5th degree lies hurt the one who is telling the lie(s): People will usually
excuse a handful of 'little white lies' told by you, but once you develop a reputation
for regularly exaggerating or embellishing facts, it will cause others not to 'take you
seriously' and eventually people will start treating you like a 'joker' or 'comedian' who
is known for telling amusing partial truths instead of whole truths.

2) 4th Degree Lies: Lies that are designed to give people a misleading
impression of what you want from them and why you really want to share their
company.

Comment: The lies in this category are commonly known as "manipulative head
games." Men and women usually express lies in this category when they are not
ready to be open and honest with a member of the opposite sex about why they
really initiated a series of interactions with that particular person of interest, and why
they ultimately want to share that person's company in the long run.

Example of a lie in this category that is usually told by men: A man telling a
woman that he has "no problem" maintaining a purely platonic friendship with her,
when he knows deep-down that he wants a relationship that is more romantic and/or
sexual in nature.

Example of a lie in this category that is usually told by women: A woman telling
a man that she finds him 'charming,' attentive, and 'fun to be around,' which gives the
man the misleading impression that she has some degree of romantic and/or sexual
interest in him, when in reality, she wants nothing more than non-romantic, non-
sexual, purely platonic companionship from this man.

How 4th degree lies hurt the ones who are being lied to: The men and women
you interacted with will be left feeling as though they were blatantly misled and
'used,' and they will feel like they wasted a significant amount of time, energy, effort,
and even money.

How 4th degree lies hurt the one who is telling the lie(s): Over a period of time,
people will begin to look at you as a dishonest, disingenuous, and manipulative
person and this will ultimately have a negative effect on your future social
interactions with members of the opposite sex.

3) 3rd Degree Lies: Lies that are designed to allow you to hide something or
deny something about yourself.

Comment: There are 'lies of commission' (i.e., telling someone information that is
untrue or invalid) and then there are 'lies of omission' (i.e., purposely hiding
information about yourself from someone). Lies in this category are common among
people who have many "deep, dark secrets" in their past, or what is known as
"skeletons in their closet."

Example of a lie in this category that is usually told by men: A man meets a
woman and starts dating her, but he conveniently 'forgets' to tell this woman that he
used to have a 'friends-with-sexual-benefits' relationship with her first cousin,
Samantha.
Example of a lie in this category that is usually told by women: A woman telling
a man that she does not have any children, but she fails to mention that she had two
miscarriages and one abortion with her last three boyfriends.

How 3rd degree lies hurt the ones who are being lied to: When the truth finally
reveals itself, it is going to severely damage the level of trust between any man and
woman who is married or involved in a long-term romantic relationship.

How 3rd degree lies hurt the one who is telling the lie(s): Once the person who
you were married to, or in a relationship with, finds out the truth . . . more-than-likely,
they are going to share your 'secrets' and 'skeletons' with as many people as
possible, which will potentially cause you a high degree of public shame and
embarrassment.

4) 2nd Degree Lies: Lies that are designed to allow you to 'have your cake and
eat it too.'

Comment: Many men want a wife who is going to be loyal and monogamous, but on
their end, they want to enjoy the freedom of a single bachelor. Similarly, some
women want a wealthy husband, but they want to 'fool around' occasionally with a
broke, unemployed 'bad boy' who provides them with five-star orgasms in bed.

Example of a lie in this category that is usually told by men: A man 'swears to
God' to his wife that he is not having sex with his secretary, but everyone who works
in the office with him knows he is bangin' his secretary.

Example of a lie in this category that is usually told by women: When a

woman's husband asks his wife why does her personal health and fitness trainer
keep sending her text messages late at night and early in the morning, she tells him
that it is because "he wants to keep her focused on eating right and exercising."
Meanwhile, the personal trainer is getting all sorts of 'erotic and orgasmic exercise'
with one of his favorite female clients.

How 2nd degree lies hurt the ones who are being lied to: The man or woman
who was being lied to regularly is going to feel like a naive fool once the truth reveals
itself. The hurt emotions can cause them to seek some sort of retribution in the form
of public humiliation and stalking, or general attempts at ruining the liar's image and
reputation.

How 2nd degree lies hurt the one who is telling the lie(s): Once you earn a
reputation for blatantly betraying the trust of a spouse or long-term companion, it is
going to be hard for you to shed that image in the near future among those in your
social circle. The quality and/or quantity of your future romantic and sexual
companions is going to surely diminish to the point where you might be forced to
move to a new city, state, or even a new country.

5) 1st Degree Lies: Lies that are designed to prevent you from experiencing
harsh financial consequences, physical harm or danger, the end to your career
or marriage, or major forms of public embarrassment and humiliation.
Comment: There are "little" lies and then there are BIG LIES. Lies told in this
category will usually have catastrophic consequences and repercussions if the truth
ever came to light. We're talking the end of a marriage, the end of a career, jail or
prison time, various forms of public humiliation and shame, or even in a few cases,
death.

Example of a lie in this category that is usually told by men: What seems like a
generous offer by a man to pay for the college tuition of his best friend's daughter, is
actually a 'bribe' to keep her from revealing that he committed statutory rape with his
friend's daughter from the time she was fifteen years old until the time she was
seventeen years old.

Example of a lie in this category that is usually told by women: A married

woman offers creative excuses to her close friends and family for why her youngest
son seem to look 'different' from his siblings,' when the reality is that her husband is
not the father of her youngest boy ... but rather the boy's father is her husband's
boss.

How 1st degree lies hurt the ones who are being lied to: The lies in this category
could cause a man or woman who was a victim to someone else's lies to become
suicidal, temporarily insane, hateful, vindictive, and even murderous.

How 1st degree lies hurt the one who is telling the lie(s): In worst case scenario,
you might end up dead for telling one or more lies in this category. At bare minimum,
when the truth rises to the surface (as it almost always does), your life as you know it
will never, ever be the same again.

Bottom line? Tell the truth even when the easier thing to do is lie. In the short-run,
yes ... it might be challenging for you and cause some bruised egos or hurt feelings.
In the long-run though, your sense of character and integrity will always remain
intact.

For those men and women who naively believe that lying to others allows you to "get
over on people," think again. The truth is persistent, and will always find a way to
make itself known.

If nothing else, just the fear inside your head that the truth could be revealed will
always prevent you from living a truly enjoyable and satisfying life full of peace of
mind.
5 questions that men and
women ask each other that
are really just dumb or
vague
When you were in grade school, middle school, high school, or even college, you
probably had at least one teacher who said to you, "There is no such thing as a
'dumb' or 'stupid' question." Yeah, okay. You keep believing that. The next time we
hear you ask a co-worker, "So ... what time is your 4:30pm doctor's
appointment?" we will just look the other way and pretend like we did just hear you
ask such a not-so-bright question.

In the world of dating and relationships, men and women have been known for
asking questions and/or expressing comments that are at minimum, rhetorical ...
and at maximum, does not serve any real purpose in helping a man or woman
determine if they are going to be able to develop some degree of romantic and/or
sexual chemistry between them ... or not.

There is a saying: If you want better answers ... ask better questions. Vague
questions beget vague responses. Upfront, specific, straight-to-the-point questions
tend to provoke upfront, specific, straight-to-the-point responses.

Here are five examples of questions (or comments) that each gender has been
known to frequently say to a member of the opposite sex:

A. Men's 'dumb' and/or vague questions to women

1) "Hey . . . I think you are attractive. Can I get your (phone) number?" or "Can I
call you sometime?"

Comment: Many reading this article would assume this is an appropriate question
for a man to ask a woman. No, it is not. Why not? Why would a woman be motivated
to converse with you over-the-phone if she has no idea WHY you want to converse
with her? Are you looking to offer her some form of employment? Are you looking to
add yourself to her already long list of purely platonic friends? Are you looking to
watch her favorite soap operas with her?

Generally speaking, you should never ask a woman for her phone number and/or
offer to give a woman your phone number until you have given that woman a general
idea of WHY you want to engage in a conversation with her. Do you want her to be
your next long-term girlfriend? Do you want her to be your next "friends-with-
benefits" partner? Do you want to simply enjoy a 'one-night stand' or 'weekend fling'
with her? Even if you are undecided on the specific type of romantic and/or sexual
relationship you want to engage in with a woman, you still should let that woman
know something along the lines of, "Because I want to continue this conversation, it
is my suggestion that we exchange phone numbers. I am extremely confident that
you and I are going to develop and maintain a high degree of sexual chemistry with
one another during our next two or three conversations."

2) "Would you love to hang out sometime?"

Comment: What does it really mean to "hang out?" Hang out and do what?!?
Examine the stars in the sky? Reminisce on your high school activities? Exchange
information on your favorite meals that your grandmother prepared for you?

Arguably nothing is more vague and ambiguous than asking a woman to 'hang out'
with you. Can you imagine if you were looking for employment, and a potential
employer asked you, "Hey ... would you love to hang out with me next week? Make
sure and bring your rsum though . . ."

A much better question would be, "I think you are attractive and I would love to share
your company in a romantic or sexual manner at some point in the near future. Are
you single and available to share my company in such a manner in the near future?"

3) "I would love to have dinner with you and then catch a movie afterwards.
Are you game?"

Comment: Are you interested in identifying what types of food this woman is
interested in eating? Do you want to know what genres of feature-films she loves the
best? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

No less than 90% of the time that a man asks a woman to have dinner with him, he
really is not interested in discussing his favorite foods with a woman, or listening to
her highlight her favorite meals. Same with invitations to movies.

The real reason why any man asks any woman to share his company is because he
wants to see if there is any romantic and/or sexual chemistry between him and the
woman. Period. Everything else a man discusses with a woman is merely
representative of entertaining "fluff talk" and "small talk."

4) "Do men approach you all the time and tell you how beautiful and sexy you
are?" or "Are you a model?"

Comment: Talk about "cringe worthy." What do you expect a woman to say? "Well,
actually, most men let me know that they find me extremely unattractive and they
usually add that I have virtually no sex appeal at all." Duh.

Do not try to earn 'brownie points' by excessively flattering a woman's ego. That is
not a sexual turn-on to a woman at all. At best, that woman is going to add you to her
list of "men who are ready and willing to flatter my ego when my self-esteem needs a
boost." At worst, she is going to display an insincere smile toward you and abruptly
end the conversation and go about her way.
If you are going to compliment a woman, make sure that compliment is directly
correlated to something you want to do with her. For example, instead of saying,
"You have some beautiful lips...," say, "I cannot wait to kiss you so that I can press
my lips against those beautiful lips of yours."

5) "Would you like me to buy you a drink?"

Comment: If this columnist had just one dollar for every time a man asked a woman
this question at a bar, pub, restaurant or nightclub, he would retire a rich man. A man
would almost be better off saying to a woman, "Can I get you to agree to consume
this alcohol in the hope that it will lower your inhibitions and provide me with a
significantly better chance of persuading you to have sex with me tonight?"

Reality check for men: The vast majority of women are going to accept ANYTHING
YOU OFFER TO THEM FOR FREE THAT NORMALLY WOULD COST THEM
MONEY. Get it? Got it? Good. Offering women "free stuff" is one of the least
effective ways of attempting to create genuine romantic and/or sexual chemistry with
a woman. Now if you are looking to attract women who are 'gold digger' types or
financial favor-seeker types ... then by all means, do what you do best.

B. Women's 'dumb' and/or vague questions to men

1) "Are you just trying to get in my pants?"

Comment: Any woman who asks a man this question should be immediately drug-
tested.

Of course any man who finds you physically attractive and sexually appealing is
trying to get in your pants. Oh ... you do not believe me? Okay, try saying one of
these two things to the next man who approaches you on the street, at a bar or
nightclub, or at a party or general social event:

Suggested comment #1: "I know you probably want to have sex with me ... but I am
committed to practicing celibacy until I get married." (only those men who are looking
to get married in the near future will keep conversing with you)

Suggested comment #2: "Even though you probably cannot tell by looking at me ... I
used to be a man. My transgender surgical procedure was practically flawless." (start
your stopwatch .... T-minus 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... he is gone!)

Ladies, understand this: There is no such thing as a man who is "not looking for sex"
from a woman. Get that out of your head. All men are looking for some type of
romantic and/or sexual relationship with women. No man goes out looking to create
a new purely platonic friendship with a woman of interest.

The question is not are they looking for sex ... but rather, what type of sex are they
looking for? Short-term? Long-term? Monogamous? Non-monogamous? Extremely
kinky? Conventional? One-on-one? Group sex?
Any man who is single and heterosexual with a healthy penis is looking to have
regular, semi-regular, or occasional sex with a woman.

2) "What do you think I am ... a prostitute? A whore? A slut?"

Comment: Over half of the time that a man makes it specifically clear to a woman
that he is looking for 'immediate' sexual companionship (i.e., short-term and/or non-
monogamous 'casual' sex), a woman will typically respond with something along the
lines of, "Do I have 'slut' tattooed on my forehead?"

Terms such as "whore" and "slut" are so highly subjective, they are really not worth
discussing or debating. The truth of the matter is, very few men are going to tell you
what they really think about you, your personality, your attitude, and your past sexual
experiences until after they have sex with you ... not before. Most men are going to
be full of you-know-what regarding their true opinions and perceptions of you before
they have sex with you. In other words, a man can say to you before having sex with
you, "I have the utmost respect for you as a woman," but after he has sex with you
two or three times, he will tell his boys that you were nothing more than a
'promiscuous slut.' Even if you make most men wait three months, six months, nine
months or longer for sex, there is still at least a 50% chance that the man is going to
say something critical or negative about you to one or more of his friends. That is just
a part of life.

3) "Well before we have sex ... aren't you going to take some time to get to
know me first?"

Comment: No question or comment separates how women think from how men
think than variations of this ridiculous question.

Reality check for women: Most men do not even need to know your first and/or last
name before agreeing to have sex with you ... let alone, anything else about your
past, your personality, your goals and ambitions, your career, or your favorite foods
or movies. Particularly if the man's interest is a one-night stand, a weekend fling, or
some other variation of short-term and/or non-monogamous 'casual' sex.

Men really only need to know three things about a woman before they have sex with
her:

i) Does she have a history of being an obsessive 'stalker' type with men?

ii) Does she have a history of bad hygiene, body odors, and/or sexually transmitted
diseases?

iii) Does she use any type of birth control pills or other methods to prevent an
unwanted pregnancy?

Other than those three factors, the vast majority of men really do not need to 'get to
know a woman' prior to having sex with her. Men are only interested in 'getting to
know a woman' if they are looking at a woman as a future wife or a prospective long-
term girlfriend / romantic companion. And even in those situations, men want to 'get
to know a woman' more so for the time they will be spending with that woman not
having sex more so than the time they will be spending with that woman having sex.

For example, men want to know if a woman has the moral character and patience to
nurture and raise healthy, well-adjusted children if they have a desire to marry her
and have children with her. In some cases, if a man's interest is more casual, he
might want to 'get to know' a woman to make sure that if he falls asleep, she will not
steal money out of his wallet and then suddenly just 'take off' before he wakes up.

4) "I have to admit ... you are seductive and charming. What you just
whispered in my ear was a turn-on. I bet you say that to all of the girls
though ... don't you?"

Comment: If you are a woman reading this article right now, you probably have to
chuckle yourself at how many times you offered a variation of that comment and
question to a man of interest.

Here's the deal: If a man said one comment to a woman, and that comment directly
resulted in a woman agreeing to perform oral sex on him and/or resulted in that
woman agreeing to engage in intercourse with him, there is a 99.9999% chance that
he is going to use that same creative, seductive, charming comment on one or more
women after that. End of story.

Men always get asked, "I bet you say that to all of the women you approach ... don't
you?" and the answer is a big fat YES. Unless you as a woman have some physical
or non-physical characteristic that is truly "unique," and no other woman can
compare, nine times out of ten ... a man has said everything he is saying to you to at
least one other woman before you.

5) "Would you want some man saying to your mother, sister, or daughter what
you just said to me?" or "Do you even respect women?"

Comment: Okay ladies ... grab a pen or pencil and write this down: no man wants
another man to look at his mother, sister, and/or daughter in a lustful way, unless
that man has an engagement ring in his hand. Get it? Got it? Good.

Men are the absolutely biggest sexual hypocrites in the world when it comes to them
wanting to have sex with women versus other men wanting to have sex with their
female family members. So, bottom line, never ask a man who just proposed to you
an invitation to provide him with a pleasurable, satisfying blowjob if he would want
his mother, sister, or daughter to agree to give a man they just met a blowjob outside
the context of marriage.

As far as the 'respect' issue goes, what does that even mean? If a man assumes you
will engage in a one-night stand with him, does that mean that he automatically
"does not respect you?" If a man assumes that you are a prude who will only have
sex with a man who is your husband or long-term boyfriend, does that mean that he
automatically "respects you?" The answer to both questions is "no."
Many women men meet, they only want to engage in short-term non-monogamous
sex with ... while other women they meet, they want to engage in either long-term
monogamous sex, long-term non-monogamous sex, or short-term monogamous sex
with. No category of sex in a man's mind is looked upon as "more respectful" or "less
respectful." Do you, as a woman reading this, look at fast food as "less respectful"
than the food in your refrigerator? Do you think it is "respectful" to treat one man like
a purely platonic friend while agreeing to have sex with his handsome co-worker or
golfing buddy just 44-72 hours after you were introduced to him?

Quit using the "respect" vs. "disrespect" terminology to lay guilt trips on a man's
psyche. Most men could care less. If you are not interested in engaging in sexual
relations with a man ... just say, "I am not interested in having sex with you," and end
the conversation and keep it moving. No need for lengthy, judgmental statements to
be expressed.

Well ladies and gents ... that will do it for this article.

The next time you are engaged in a first-time conversation with a man or woman, be
more conscious of the questions you ask as well as the comments you express.
Again, try to stay away from questions that are rhetorical, vague, ambiguous, or just
plain nonsensical and unproductive. Only ask questions and/or express comments
that will determine if you and the person you are conversing with have the same
romantic or sexual desires, interests, and intentions. Nothing more, nothing less.

By the way ... do you read the articles written by this columnist because you love the
advice he gives, and he always knows what he is talking about?

Okay. That was a really STUPID question.

There is no such thing as
being 'disrespected' when
you lack personal
boundaries
We have all heard the adage, "Fool me once ... shame on you. Fool me twice,
shame on me."

For those not too familiar with this saying, what exactly does this mean?

In a nutshell, if another person exhibits behavior toward you that you perceive to be
'disrespectful' and/or 'undesirable' one time . . . then it is acceptable for you to
harshly criticize them for their behavior toward you because you had no idea ahead
of time that the man you interacted with was an a--hole or jerk, or the woman you
just finished interacting with was an ill-mannered bitch.

It can even be argued that if you were to allow someone to violate your sense of self-
respect or personal dignity two times consecutively ... that this would also be
halfway excusable, because you can argue that you assumed that this person may
have been "acting out of character" during your first interaction with them, and you
were willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and offer them a second chance to
win your favor during your second interaction with them.

On the other hand, if a man or woman exhibits behavior toward you three or more
times in a row that most objective-minded people would easily categorize as "highly
disrespectful," "abusive," "mean-spirited," or just plain "rude," guess whose fault that
is?

That's right. YOURS.

Quite frequently, women will offer comments about men such as, "Many men are so
disrespectful toward women ... they are so misogynistic." Yeah, right. Same with
men who offer harsh, subjective criticisms toward women such as, "Women are
always trying to emasculate us and undermine our manhood ... they are such
bitches." Oh, quit whining and complaining. Just stop it.

Comedian Dave Chappelle was once asked on Inside the Actor's Studio if he felt
like his brand of humor was 'offensive' to his viewing audience and if many of his
comedic skits on his former Comedy Central show 'crossed the line' from humor of
good taste to humor of bad taste. Chappelle marinated on the question a bit, and
then responded by saying, "In order for me to answer that ... I would first need to
know where that person's 'line' is."
Here is the reality: Not all men and not all women have the same "lines." Many men
and women have a set of personal boundaries that are extremely hardline and
disobliging while other men and women tend to be very lenient, accommodating, and
forgiving when their personal boundaries are disrespected and violated. Even worse,
some men and women have never established their personal boundaries with those
who they interact with regularly or semi-regularly, and consequently, many people in
their life (friends, family members, business colleagues, social acquaintances,
etc.) tend to take advantage of them, bully them, and walk all over them whenever
they see fit.

It's common knowledge to just about all full-fledged adults that not everyone walking
the planet Earth lives by 'The Golden Rule' (i.e., "Always treat others as you would
have them treat you.") Some men and women live to bully others, disrespect others,
dominate others, and humiliate others.

Note: There are some men and women - believe it or not - who love to be abused,
disrespected, and humiliated. These types are known as masochists. Masochists
actually become sexually aroused when they are treated poorly, and usually become
angry, irritable and frustrated when they are treated kindly and with respect.

The question is, if you consciously allow others to treat you like crap on a frequent
basis ... who are you to complain about it later? (Again, unless you are a masochist)

One clarification has to be made though. Just because someone fails to exhibit the
behavior that you would prefer them to, or have grown accustomed to receiving,
does not necessarily mean that this man or woman is being "disrespectful" toward
you.

For example, if a man is at a public picnic park, and he happens to be eating meat in
front of you ... and let's say that you are a hardcore vegan or a vegetarian ... you
cannot go up to this man and accuse him of being "disrespectful" to you. For
starters, you and he are in an area that is of public domain, and secondly, he had no
idea ahead of time that you were a vegan or vegetarian. Even if you have a
passionate hatred for "meat-eaters," you could not validly criticize this person.

Now, on the other hand, if you and this man were good friends, and he knew for
months or for years that you were a strict vegetarian, and then he comes to visit your
house and blatantly eats a triple cheeseburger, a slice of pizza with peperoni and
Italian sausage, and some chicken wings ... then yes. This would be a valid example
of this male friend of yours being blatantly disrespectful of your boundaries. It would
then be on you to put this man in his place, or in worst case scenario, end your
friendship with him.

As it relates to dating and relationships, many women will accuse men who
straightforwardly express a desire for short-term non-monogamous 'casual' sex with
them as being "disrespectful." Some common responses are, "I am not a slut! I am
not a whore! I am a respectable lady!! I don't do one-night stands or weekend flings!!
You are so disrespectful!!" Stop it. Just stop it. That man's sexual proposal was NOT
representative of him being "disrespectful." How does he know that you are not
willing to indulge in a kinky one-night stand or weekend fling with him? By your hair?
Your clothes? Your manner of speech? Get real.

Now if you are a woman, and you meet a man, and you immediately convey to this
man that you are married, engaged, or simply not interested in engaging in sexual
relations with him (short-term, long-term, monogamous, or non-monogamous), then
he would have no choice but to hold back on his sexual advances and leave you
alone. You would have then established some boundaries that you did not want to
be challenged, questioned, or violated. If this man continued to be persistent, then
he would be guilty of sexual harassment.

Lesson to be learned: Do not ever 'assume' that other people know what your
likes and dislikes are, and what your personal boundaries are. At least half of
the people you interact with will assume that you have no personal boundaries
whatsoever.

It is your job and your obligation to let people know in your first one or two
conversations what type of man or woman you are, and where your "lines" are.

For example, if you do not want people smoking marijuana or cigarettes in your
apartment or house ... tell them. If you do not want people using explicit profanity
while in conversation with you at your place (or even their place) ... tell them. You
do not have to be 'mean' or too harsh about it, at least not initially. Just say, "I would
prefer that you do not smoke in my house. I do not allow visitors or even friends of
mine to smoke in my house" or "I would prefer that you do not use harsh profanity
while in my presence. I am not a fan of that type of language."

This issue is why many people say "Nice guys (and gals) finish last." Many disagree
with that statement and seek to debate it, but the reality is, any time you are being
'too lenient' with people and being 'too accommodating' with people to the point
where you are respecting their personal boundaries, but you are not requiring those
same people to respect your personal boundaries, then you are guilty of being "too
nice" to those people.

Never be "too nice." Demonstrate some backbone, and let the men and women in
your life know exactly when they have 'crossed' one or more of your 'lines.'

If they fool you once ... shame on them. Even if they fool you twice ... give them the
benefit of the doubt (they may have just had a 'bad day' during their first interaction
with you).

But if anyone disrespects you three or more times . . . that is on YOU my friend. You
have no one to criticize but yourself. Stop the unnecessary whining and complaining.
'Gone Girl': 5 life lessons to
be learned from the year's
best romantic drama
Gone Girl (2014)
Rating:
Star
Star
Star
Star
Star

Warning: If you have not yet viewed the film, Gone Girl, you might not want to read
this review in its entirety. At points, some "spoilers" (i.e. plot points from the film) may
be revealed, and could potentially ruin your viewing experience.

Gone Girl is the 'chick flick' that really is not a chick flick at all. Quite frankly, at least
half of the women who view this movie probably will not like it. To take it a step
further, if a man had written the novel that this film was based on, and then later
wrote the screenplay for this film, 90% chance, this film would have never been
made. If it had been made, feminist groups would be protesting this movie for
weeks ... even months. The male novelist and screenwriter would then be publicly
branded as a 'woman-hater' and a 'misogynist' for sure. Thank goodness, a woman
wrote this film (Gillian Flynn). Gone Girl could be described as 1/3 romantic drama,
1/3 crime-suspense thriller, and 1/3 dark-themed comedy.

Author Esther Vilar had a book published in 1971 entitled, The Manipulated Man.
The book was considered extremely controversial at the time (and to a degree, still
is), and Vilar received hate mail and even death threats from women who were
hardcore feminists. Why did these women hate Vilar and her book so much?

In the book, Vilar basically asserts that the vast majority of women are extremely
calculating and highly manipulative. Vilar spells out in her book that she believes
most women 'get over' on men (and society as a whole) by presenting themselves as
'innocent victims' to the big, bad bullies known as 'men.' Vilar goes on to say that
many women manipulate men to receive financial favors, to gain employment offers,
to get pregnant, and even to get married.

If you were to take the primary themes from Vilar's book, and throw in one
part American Beauty, one part The Invention of Lying, one part Body Heat, as
well as some of the assertions presented in the books Radical Honesty and The
Possibility of Sex, then the end result would more-than-likely be Gone Girl.
Here are 5 takeaway life lessons that this brilliantly written film touches on:

1) When a married man and a married woman experience drama, the general
public is always going to first look at the man as the 'bad guy' in the
relationship unless some concrete evidence comes forward that proves
otherwise

Comment: When Beyonc's sister, Solange Knowles, attacked music mogul Sean
Carter a.k.a. Jay-Z in an elevator, what did many people in society say, and
particularly women? "He must have done SOMETHING to set her off...." Yet, when
suspended NFL football player Ray Rice punched his wife Janay in an elevator, did
anyone say or suggest, "She must have done SOMETHING to set him off ..." No.
Not hardly.

The movie Gone Girl plays on this fact. Generally speaking, most members of the
media as well as most members of society as a whole are always going to give
women the benefit of the doubt. Nineteen out of every twenty times.

For married men reading this review: Let me throw a "hypothetical scenario" at you.
Let's say you're in a bad marriage. You got caught cheating on your wife, and now
she not only resents you for it, but flat-out hates you for it. On top of this, she has
been wanting you to get her pregnant, but you have refused for years.

What if this woman ... your wife ... was so hateful and manipulative that she decided
to 'fake' her own death, and make it look like you murdered her?

Marinate on that.

Realistically, unless some concrete evidence came forward that proved your wife set
you up and framed you for her alleged murder, the general public wouldassume you
actually murdered your wife even if there was no factual evidence available to prove
that you were guilty.

This brings me to the second lesson to be learned from the David Fincher-directed
film . . .

2) Many women can literally 'get away with murder' if they are intelligent
enough, shrewd enough, and bold enough to do it

Comment: Along the same lines as point #1, most women ... and particularly highly
manipulative women ... realize that society tends to give them the benefit of the
doubt regarding any drama that goes down between them and a man. For example,
a woman could agree to consensual sex ... but if she decides later on that the guy
she just had sex with is a 'jerk,' she could conceivably fabricate circumstances that
would make it look like this man raped or date-raped her (when in reality, he did not).

Again, most members of the general public would probably say, "Yeah ... I believe he
raped her. That is just how men are. They are so aggressive and horny." Basically,
what the movie Gone Girl asserts, is that when it comes to man vs. woman drama, a
woman is going to be "assumed to be innocent until absolutely, positively proven
guilty" while the man will be "assumed to be guilty until absolutely, positively proven
innocent."

3) The media (and even the Entertainment Industry) has the power to provoke
you to like someone ... or dislike someone

Comment: Probably the most underrated sub-plot of Gone Girl is its focus on the
power of "media manipulation." It's been known for years that the media can 'make
you or break you.' One day, you could be a 'media darling' ... and the next minute,
society will hate you. You take Tiger Woods. Tiger was a media darling for a long
time. Then, once he got caught cheating on his wife with skanky women, his
popularity plunged almost overnight.

Two television series that play into this are ABC's Scandal and Showtime's Ray
Donovan. Both lead characters in those two series (Actress Kerry Washingtonand
Actor Liev Schreiber) are paid by their clients to prevent them from accumulating
"bad publicity," and in some cases, prevent them from being charged with a crime.

This is why most men and women who are celebrities and generally in the public eye
have agents, managers, publicists, and "handlers." These people are hired to make
sure that their clients remain "likeable" to the general public. Because if you are an
Entertainment Industry celebrity or media personality, how "likeable" you are
translates into how much money you will earn.

Even though Nick Dunne (Actor Ben Affleck) is not really a 'celebrity' in the
film Gone Girl, once he is accused of murdering his seemingly missing wife Amy
a.k.a. "Amazing Amy" (Actress Rosamund Pike), the media starts branding him as a
"jerk" and an "unlikeable guy." The main person that prevents him from sinking too
low in the 'court of public opinion and social media' is his lawyer, Tanner Bolt
(Actor Tyler Perry).

What the movie Gone Girl highlights in a subtle manner is that if you are perceived
as "likeable" by the general public, people do not really care if you have flaws and
weaknesses in your personality, or if you have done a few wrong things in your life.
On the flip side, once you are branded as an "unlikeable" person, no one will want to
associate with you even if you are truly a good, quality person who generally treats
people right behind closed doors.

4) Many married couples are not necessarily 'real' and authentic with each
other when they first connect romantically

Comment: For the last fifteen or twenty years, there has always been this urban
slang phrase that went mainstream that says, "I am just keepin' it real." The reason
why that phrase is used so frequently, and why it is so popular, is because most
human beings are not real, raw, and authentic with each other. Dr. Brad Blanton,
author of Radical Honesty: How to Transform Your Life by Telling the
Truth emphatically points this out his best-selling book. Dr. Blanton says in his book
that behavior that is dishonest, disingenuous, duplicitous, and manipulative has
become more or less "acceptable" in mainstream society, and that most people view
such forms of behavior as "normal." Dr. Blanton goes on to say that when you are a
man or woman who is bluntly honest, extremely sincere, and possess no 'phony'
and/or manipulative tendencies about you whatsoever, you will typically be viewed
as "weird" or "controversial."

If a nickname could be given to the movie Gone Girl, an alternative title would be
"Public Faades." Not only do people who only know each other casually and
socially tend to present a number of public faades to each other, but even men and
women who are involved with each other romantically and sexually tend to do the
same thing.

If you are a woman reading this, how many times have you told one of your
girlfriends a comment along the lines of, "That one guy I dated a few years ago was
so nice to me when I first met him ... but then, after we had sex a few times, he
started acting like a jerk!" The reality is, that guy did not just 'suddenly' become a
'jerk.' What that guy did was present you with a believable faade that you bought
into, and he used that faade for days, weeks, or months until he got what he wanted
from you (casual sex).

If you are a man reading this, how many times have you told one of your male
buddies a comment along the lines of, "Man, I have to be honest ... my wife is
nothing like the woman who I met years ago. When I first met her, she was so sweet,
sensuous, feminine, and submissive. Now, she is just a straight up argumentative
bitch who tries to emasculate me at every opportunity." Again ... that wife of yours
did not just 'suddenly' change her behavior. She just waited to reveal who she really
was all along. If a woman wants you to marry her really, really badly ... and wants to
get pregnant by you really, really badly ... she will put on an "acting performance"
that will last for weeks, months, or even years. Once that woman gets what she
wants (e.g., a wedding ring on her finger, a child in her womb, etc.), then she will feel
like she is free to reveal to you the person who she really is and really was all along.

Gone Girl highlights this fact. In the film, Nick and Amy Dunne presented each other
with faades of their real selves. It was not until years into their marriage where they
began to slowly, but surely reveal to each other who they really were at their core.
This type of scenario plays out in households all over the country on a daily, weekly,
and monthly basis among married and unmarried couples.

5) Just because you are a man with an expensive house, an expensive car, a
great career and a large bank account does not mean that you are going to
attract women who have a genuine interest in you

Comment: If you are a man, and you have read many of the previous articles in this
column, you should know that being wealthy, having a successful career, and
owning a lot of material possessions is highly overrated when it comes to attracting a
woman who is genuinely interested in sharing your company in a romantic and/or
sexual manner.

Without giving away too many more of the captivating and intriguing plot points
of Gone Girl, there is a sub-plot toward the latter part of the movie that highlights this
fact. Surely, there are women who will not hesitate to "use" a man and manipulate a
man in order to secure financial assistance or support from him. No doubt about that.
This is why you have 'gold digger' types and "Sugar Babies" that exist in society. The
harsh reality is, if a woman is not attracted to you ... she is just not attracted to you.
Even if you win twenty million dollars in the lottery tomorrow, that woman is still not
going to develop any genuine interest in dating you or having sex with you. Again,
she may pretend to be interested in you in order to take advantage of your financial
generosity, but other than that, no amount of money is going to create a sincere
interest on her part.

I applaud Hollywood for producing and distributing Gone Girl. Let's be real: There
have been dozens, if not hundreds of films that highlight the dark side of men in their
romantic and sexual relationships with women, but only a handful of movies have
been made over the years where the woman is more so the "bad guy" in a
relationship or marriage (see previous article).

This film should be required viewing for any single, engaged, or married man who is
nave enough to buy into the belief that "all women are sweet, innocent, beautiful
creatures" who can do no wrong. The reality is, there are 'good' men in society ...
and there are 'bad' men in society. There are women with great moral character and
integrity ... and there are women who are super scandalous, conniving, venomous,
vindictive, and extremely manipulative.

No movie that has been released in 2014 points out these facts more than Gone Girl.
Kudos to Ms. Flynn, Ms. Pike, Mr. Fincher, and everyone else associated with this
brilliant film.
Feedback from Readers #17: Readers
discuss 'Gone Girl,' misogyny, and casual
sex
Welcome to the 17th Edition of "Feedback from Readers." As most of my long-time
readers know, I usually feature feedback I have received from my male and female
readers after every five-to-seven articles that have been published for this column.
Since my last installment of Feedback from Readers, I have had six articles and one
movie review. The most feedback I received from readers was in regard to my
review of the controversial feature-film, Gone Girl, starring Ben
Affleck and Rosamund Pike. Three of my last five articles also received a quite a
bit of feedback from men and women.

[Note: Some of the first names have been changed for the sake of anonymity, and
many questions and/or comments may have been edited, condensed or
paraphrased to some degree in order to either save space or correct spelling and
grammatical errors]

Email feedback in response to the movie review, 'Gone Girl': 5 life lessons to be
learned from the year's best relationship drama

From Belinda M.:

"Alan, I am beginning to come to the conclusion that you are a closet misogynist!!
(and I say that with love!)

I read and like most of your articles, but you are always quick to point out everything
that is wrong with women. You hardly ever talk about what is wrong with men.

Take your review of the recently released movie, Gone Girl, for example. You talked
at length about how the character of Anne Dunne (played by Rosamund Pike)
represented how scandalous and manipulative women can be, but you did not make
one mention about how unfaithful and physically abusive the character of Nick
Dunne (Ben Affleck) was! Did you and I even watch the same movie? Nick was a
total jerk, but yet all you pointed out was how much of a bitch Anne's character was.
A little one-sided, don't you think? I will still read your articles, but you have to admit
Alan ... you always defend men's behavior!"

Alan Roger Currie's response: Belinda, have you listened to any episodes of my
talk radio podcast program, Upfront & Straightforward, or have you ever had a
chance to read my first book, Mode One: Let the Women Know What You're
REALLY Thinking?

Just about my entire 'Mode One' book is about how flawed men are in their
interpersonal communication skills with women. I discuss in detail, and at length,
how men tend to lie to women, mislead women, manipulate their emotions, and
cheat on their wives and long-term girlfriends. Also, I have had many episodes of my
talk radio podcast program highlight discussion topics about the various flaws and
weaknesses in many men's character and integrity ... not to mention, a number of
articles in this very column.

The reality is this though: Hollywood has made probably hundreds of romantic
dramas that more than highlight the husband or boyfriend in the relationship being
presented as 'the bad guy.' You rarely come across romantic comedies and/or
romantic dramas where a man's wife, fiance, or long-term girlfriend is presented as
the pathological liar or cheater. The movies Blue Valentine, Closer, Temptation,
and Unfaithful, along with Gone Girl, are Hollywood's "exceptions" to that rule. A
few of the movies listed in this previous article of mine are also exceptions.

I find it funny that if a screenwriter and/or director throws a "little dirt" on the
character and integrity of a lovely female lead, all of the sudden the entire film is
branded as "misogynistic" by many feminist types and some women in general. My
question is ... why did Anne stay with Nick once she found out he was cheating on
her? She could have just left him. But nooooooo . . . that would have been the easy,
non-manipulative thing to do. Both Anne and Nick had their share of flaws within the
context of the story, but Anne was way 'gone.' She was out-of-control.

Trust me Belinda, I am very objective-minded when it comes to evaluating the

weaknesses in both men's and women's behavior.

Email feedback in response to the articles, There is no such thing as being

'disrespected' when you lack personal boundaries, 5 questions that men and
women ask each other that are really just dumb or vague, and 21st Century
Dating : "New School" dating has replaced "Old School' traditions

From Bill H.:

"Hey there Alan, I am a big fan of your books and articles, but I seem to be having
one major problem with at least one concept that you endorse.

Your books and articles seem to suggest that it is okay for a man to approach a
woman, and immediately and straightforwardly let women know that you are
interested in having casual sex with them. In my experience though, women tend to
frown, have a negative reaction, or even walk away from me in the few instances
where I was bold enough to be that candid and straightforward with them about my
desire to have sex with them.

You don't think such a straightforward approach is, to some degree, disrespectful to
women?"

Alan Roger Currie's response: If you believe that exhibiting what I refer to as
'Mode One' Behavior is 'disrespectful' to women, how can you tell me with any hint of
sincerity that you are a 'fan' of my books and my articles? You cannot be a genuine
follower or supporter of mine if you truly believe that expressing your romantic and/or
sexual desires, interests, and intentions to women in a bold, highly self-assured,
upfront, specific, straight-to-the-point manner is 'disrespectful' to women.
Question #1: Are ALL women in society virgins?

If the answer is 'no' to that question, then may I ask . . .

Question #2: Are ALL women in society practicing premarital celibacy?

If the answer is 'no' to that question, then may I ask . . .

Question #3: Are ALL women in society only into engaging in sexual relations with a
man within the context of a long-term monogamous 'boyfriend-girlfriend' type
relationship?

If the answer is 'no' to that question, then may I ask . . .

Question #4: Are ALL women in society totally against the idea of engaging in short-
term (or even long-term) non-monogamous 'casual' sex, such as a one-night stand,
weekend fling, friends-with-benefits, etc.?

If the answer is 'no' to that question, then may I ask my final question, which is . . .

Question #5: Assuming that you answered 'no' to each of the previous questions,
why would you ever believe that it is 'disrespectful' to let women know immediately
and straightforwardly that you want to engage in short-term and/or non-monogamous
sexual relations with them?

Bill, pretend for a moment that you are a woman. Matter of fact, a very attractive
woman with a high degree of sex appeal. Now, let's say you have four types of men
who approach you and hit on you for sex regularly:

1. Men who you have some degree of attraction toward, and they let you
know they want to have sex with you without offering to spend time
flattering you, entertaining you, and/or 'wining and dining' you;

2. Men who you have no attraction toward whatsoever ... and these men
also make no offer to spend many hours, days, or weeks flattering you,
entertaining you, and 'wining and dining' you;

3. Men who you have some degree of attraction toward, and they
immediately offer to engage in lengthy conversations with you that are
both flattering and entertaining, and they are willing to spend money on
you, buy you gifts, and generally "wine and dine" you;

4. Men who you have no attraction toward whatsoever ... but these men still
are offering to engage in lengthy conversations with you that are both
flattering to your ego and generally entertaining, and they are also willing
to treat you to free movies, free meals, free concerts, and generally 'wine
and dine' you even though you have never made it clear to them that you
are interested in them (nor have you made it clear to them that you are
NOT interested in spending time with them in a romantic and/or sexual
manner).
Which group of men are you going to have (again, thinking like a woman) the MOST
enthusiastic response to? Which group of men are you going to have the LEAST
enthusiastic response to?

Here is your "cheat sheet" answer:

1) The most enthusiastic response you are going to have is to the men in Category
#3. Why? Because you have some degree of interest in sharing their company in a
romantic and/or sexual manner ... PLUS ... these men are willing to take the time to
flatter your ego, engage in lengthy and entertaining conversations with you, and
spend money on you in an attempt to impress you with how financially generous they
are toward women.

2) If you are at least a wee bit on the manipulative side as a woman, the second
most enthusiastic response you are going to have is to the men in Category #4.
Why? Easy: these men are willing to give you "something for nothing." What man or
woman does not want an opportunity to gain something without giving up anything of
value? These men are willing to flatter you, entertain you, and 'wine and dine' you ...
and you do not even have to tongue-kiss them or engage in sexual relations with
them.

3) The men in Category #1 are going to receive your second most enthusiastic
response if you are an honest, sincere, totally non-manipulative type woman; If you
are more on the manipulative side as a woman, the men from Category #1 are going
to INITIALLY receive somewhat of an 'adverse' response from you. Why? Because
all they are offering is their sexual companionship in exchange for your sexual
companionship. No flattery, no entertaining conversation full of corny jokes, no free
meals, movies, or concerts ... just good, satisfying sex. Even though you are
attracted to the men from Category #1, surely you cannot "immediately" let them
know you're down to engage in sex with them. Without being offered anything?? No
way. Marinate on this scenario for a little bit.

4) The men who are going to receive the worst reactions and responses are going to
be the men from Category #2. Why? Because you are not interested in sharing their
company in any sort of romantic and/or sexual manner, and on top of that, they are
not "offering" you anything of tangible or intangible value. On the positive end
though, you did not waste any time ... and the men from this category did not waste
any time (or money) either.

Get it? Got it? Good.

Email feedback in response to the article, The 5 degrees of lying that affect the
LIAR as much as the ones who were lied to

From Lisa C.:

"Mr. Currie, I read your article on the various degrees of lying, and I had a major
issue with two of your so-called 'lies' that you used as examples of women being
dishonest.
In your section on 5th degree lies, you said or suggested that all women should let
men know everything they have done in their sexual past. Why?!? What I did
sexually with an ex-boyfriend or a former lover is none of a man's business, even if
he is my new boyfriend or new husband. My sex life before him is none of his damn
business.

Also, in your section on 3rd degree lies, you said that women should let a man know
if they had an abortion or a miscarriage. Why? Why does a guy I am in a new
relationship need to know that stuff?? I was not only disappointed in that particular
article of yours Mr. Currie, I was borderline offended. That article was very
misogynistic in its tone."

Alan Roger Currie's response: Lisa, have you ever read Dr. Brad Blanton's
popular best-seller, Radical Honesty: How to Transform Your Life by Telling the
Truth? Dr. Blanton strongly recommends that when you enter into a new
relationship, you should tell your romantic companion everything about your sexual
past. I mean, everything (such as what sexual positions you enjoyed with your past
lovers). And for the most part, I totally agree with Dr. Blanton.

Did you see the film, Gone Girl? This is one of the issues that this movie highlights.
Nick Dunne did not know much about his wife Anne's past, and it came back to bite
him in the butt. I know many men and women who put on faades with each other
before they get married, and even for a few years after they get married.

In the long-run, I hiding personal information about your love life and sex life with
former spouses and companions is detrimental. Because then you have "skeletons
in your closet," and once one of those 'skeletons' is revealed or exposed, your
current spouse or companion could end up having a very adverse reaction to it, and
that could ultimately mean the end of your relationship.

Personally, I have a strong disdain for women who are phony and/or duplicitous. My
thing is, do not give me the impression that your sex life up to this point has been
'conservative' and that you have been this 'semi-prudish' woman when you know you
good and well that you have participated in two dozen swingers orgies since the age
of 21. If you are about to become my wife, I want to know that information ... and I
think the vast majority of men do too. Same with information like past abortions or
miscarriages. If a man is about to be your fianc or husband, I believe he deserves
to know everything about you and your past love life and sex life.

If that leaves you feeling 'offended' ... then so be it. You'll be okay.

Email feedback in response to the article, Being vague and ambiguous

complicates friendships and relationships ... not sex

From Bryan W.:

"Alan, I enjoy reading a lot of your articles man ... props to you for your insight. That
said, I have one major disagreement with one of your beliefs.
Why do you feel the need to separate sexual relationships into 'long-term,' 'short-
term,' 'monogamous,' or 'non-monogamous'? Isn't sex just sex? I would never
approach a woman and say, 'Hey lady ... I am looking for a short-term non-
monogamous sexual relationship with you as opposed to a long-term monogamous
relationship with you.' Why would any man say something like that to a woman?

I agree in letting women know you want a sexual relationship versus a non-sexual
relationship, but beyond that, I don't see the point of being so specific about what
type of sex you want from a woman. Can you explain to me why that is important?"

Alan Roger Currie's response: Bryan, have you read my book, Mode One: Let the
Women Know What You're REALLY Thinking? Assuming you have not, one of
the primary reasons I wrote that book is because when I was in college, most men I
knew would never be honest with women about their desire for 'casual' sex. What
most of the men would do with women is they would give women the misleading
impression that they were interested in being that woman's next long-term boyfriend,
and then, once they had sex with that woman a handful of times, they would just
dump her and in many cases, never speak to them again. I thought that was 'foul'
behavior.

If I meet a woman who I want to have sex with, and I know for a fact that I do not
want our relationship to be representative of an exclusively committed 'boyfriend-
girlfriend' type relationship, I always want that woman to know that from the start. I
do not believe in giving a woman the vague impression that I want a monogamous
sexual relationship, when I know for a fact that I want more of an open, non-
monogamous type relationship.

Distinguishing between long-term sex versus short-term sex is not quite as important
as clarifying an interest in non-monogamous sex versus monogamous sex, but in
some cases, I feel it is still important to avoid leaving women feeling misled or strung
along. For example, if I know I just want a one-time one-night stand or a weekend
fling with a woman, I usually tell women that upfront. I do not want a woman being
under the misguided impression that I might want to have sex with her for a number
of weeks or months.

Email feedback in response to the article, 'People Pleasing' is an addictive vice

similar to alcoholism or drug addiction

From Danielle S.:

"Alan, I totally agree with your article on the bad habit of indulging in 'People
Pleasing.'

I believe so many people go out of their way to always try to make other people
happy, that they do not concentrate on their own happiness, and that is never a good
thing.

I was so saddened to hear about Robin Williams' suicide, and I really do believe that
many comedians ignore their own happiness in favor of others.
Do you think that this is common for men to do this with their wives, and women to
do this with their husbands?"

Alan Roger Currie's response: Why, of course Danielle. I have known many men
and women in my lifetime who put their own desires, needs, and sense of happiness
on the back burner in favor of placing more emphasis on satisfying the needs and
desires of their spouse in order to make them happy. And for those who have been
guilty of this, it is a huge mistake. I say that in one of my books.

Any relationship should be about a mutual degree of enjoyment, satisfaction and

overall happiness. Happiness should never be 'one-sided.' The latter is a recipe for a
divorce, and even worse, a severe case of stress and depression.

If you, as a reader, ever want to offer me feedback on one or more of my articles,

you can do so below (comments section), on Twitter, on Facebook, or viaEmail.

As always, thank you for taking time to read my articles!

TV Talk Show Host Steve
Harvey points out the #1
problem with dating today
Quick, straightforward question:

Is a woman's time, attention, and social companionship 'more valuable' than a

man's time, attention, and social companionship?

For those who responded, "Yes, it is ...," why do you feel this way (particularly, if you
are a man reading this article right now)?

Recently, on an episode of The Steve Harvey Show, a woman from the audience
named 'Jessie' explained in Steve's "Ask Steve" segment a situation she
experienced with a guy where her date informed her at the last minute that he did not
have his debit card with him, so she ended up having to pay for the dinner date
herself.

Jessie expressed the comment, "I don't expect to have every date paid for ... I just
want the man that I am going out on a date with to try to 'impress me' the first
time ..."

Okay ... stop right there. Why does any man need to 'impress' a woman on the first
date? And what benefit does that serve for the woman in the long run?

A man who is a boldface liar and full-fledged con artist knows how to present himself
to women as a 'classy gentleman' who has a high degree of moral character and
integrity on a first date. A man who has cheated on his ex-wife and all of his former
romantic companions knows how to present himself to women as if he is the most
monogamy-minded man on earth. A man who has bad credit and is financially
irresponsible can rent a nice looking car and borrow some money from a friend so he
can take a woman out on a date at a five-star restaurant.

You get the point? So ... how does a man making an attempt to 'impress' a woman
really benefit the woman in the long run?

Men and women have been dating, mating, and reproducing themselves since the
beginning of time. There were no fancy automobiles 500 years ago. There were no
five-star restaurants or movie theaters 1,000 years ago.

So ... before the days of six-figure salaries and expensive clothing ... how did men go
about 'wining and dining' women?

Marinate on that for a bit. Now, back to this episode of The Steve Harvey Show.
Seconds later, Steve ... the popular host of the television talk show and the author
of Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man ... says, "Ladies, you should expect a man
to pay for a first date . . . he has to pay for your company."

Okay ... once again, stop right there.

Why should any man be expected to 'pay' for a woman's social companionship?

Why does an employer pay an employee a salary or wages? Usually because that
employee is contributing to that company becoming more organized, more
productive, and most importantly, more profitable.

What is a man paying a woman for ... sex? Entertaining conversation? Her time in
general?

Do you know what a Professional 'Escort' is? This is a woman who wealthy and
financially generous men pay money to in exchange for their social companionship
while they are out-of-town on business. Escorts slightly differ from women who
operate as an upscale professional 'Call Girl' in the sense that a female Escort is not
'obligated' to engage in sexual relations with her male clients while a Call Girl is
specifically being paid to please and sexually satisfy their male clients (some women
are referred to as 'Erotic Escorts,' which is basically the same thing as an upscale
Professional Call Girl).

So ... should all men treat all women as if they are 'Escorts' and 'Call Girls?' That
would almost be akin to saying, "All men should treat women as if they are whores
for money."

Note: The dictionary definition of a 'whore' is a woman who is willing to exchange

her romantic and sexual companionship for money, financial favors, and/or
employment opportunities. So, for example, if a woman is only willing to engage in
sex with a man if he is offering to pay her money or perform some sort of financial
favor for her - but this same woman would not be willing to have sex with that same
men if no money is being offered above or below the table - then that woman is
officially a whore.

Quick clarification:

A woman who chooses to have sex with a man for free is not a whore.

A woman who only agrees to have sex with a man after he has spent
money on her is a whore.

This gets to the heart of one of the biggest problems in society as it relates to the
concept of 'dating.'

What is the true purpose of dating? To offer women a number of free meals, free
movies, and free concerts just for the heck of it? To spend money on women in the
hopes that she will agree to have sex with a man in the near future?
On one end, you have many women who are hardcore feminist types who criticize
men for 'treating women like sluts and whores' who are supposed to just 'put out'
(i.e., have sex with a man) by the end of the first date, but then many of these same
women are in favor of a man 'wining and dining' a woman to win her favor and
interest. Really?

No man should ever feel obligated to attempt to 'impress' a woman with his financial
generosity, monetary favors, or free meals and movies. That is the very definition of
manipulation. And you have women on online matchmaking websites offering
comments like, "I don't want a man who is into playing games."

Reality check: If you, as a woman, expect men to spend money on you in order to
'impress' you ... you are asking for a man to engage in manipulative 'head games'
with you.

The main purpose of a man and a woman conversing with each other to begin with is
to find out if they have a mutual interest in sharing each other's company in a one-
on-one manner. Once the two have determined that, CHECK.

Next, is to find out what each other is looking for. A long-term, emotionally profound,
monogamous relationship that will potentially lead to marriage? An 'open' (non-
monogamous) relationship? A 'friends-with-benefits' relationship? A few days, a few
weeks, or a few months of 'casual' sex? Once the two have agreed on what type of
romantic and/or sexual relationship they plan on pursuing, CHECK.

What type of character and integrity does this person have? Complacent or
ambitious? Dishonest or honest? Lazy or industrious? Responsible or irresponsible?
Mentally sane and emotionally stable or mentally ill and psychotic? Etc., etc., etc.
Once the man and the woman have a general idea of the type of person they are
dealing with, and are enthused about moving forward, CHECK.

Sorry Mr. Harvey ... but in the real world of dating, a woman's time, attention, and
companionship is no more valuable than any man's time, attention, and social
companionship. The social companionship of all human beings - male or female -
has some degree of value. Remember that. The only woman who should ever be
'wined and dined' like a queen is a woman who gave birth to her husband's children
and then subsequently sacrificed her own career goals and ambitions in order to stay
home and nurture and raise those same children. I say treat that woman to free
meals for the rest of her life and buy her as many materialistic gifts as her heart
desires and your wallet can afford. She deserves it.

If you agree with Mr. Harvey that a man should always 'pay for a woman's company,'
then once again ... you are essentially saying that all men should treat all women as
if they are Escorts and Call Girls on the first date or two. And we wonder why some
women become materialistic gold diggers. If you socialize women to believe that all
men should feel obligated to be financially generous with women, then you are
setting women up to believe that they should 'sell' their social companionship,
romantic companionship, and sexual companionship to the "highest bidder." That is
not a good thing for male-female relationship dynamics in the long-run.
The idea of consistently paying for a woman's company is not representative of
'thinking like a man.' That is representative of thinking like a romantically and
sexually frustrated and desperate Beta male who believes that being financially
generous with women is the key to success in today's dating scene. 90% or more of
that man's self-confidence and self-esteem will always come from his net worth and
material assets ... and sadly, whenever that man is in the company of other men (or
women) who earn significantly more money than himself, he is going to feel
extremely egotistically insecure for the rest of his life. Poor guy.

Old school pimps referred to men who pay for a woman's sexual companionship as
'tricks.' Even worse than the 'tricks' were the men who spent money on women only
to gain nothing more than entertaining conversation and a polite, but disingenuous
'church hug' at the end of the date instead of the opportunity to exchange orgasms.
Pimps referred to men of this nature as 'chumps' and/or a 'suckas.'

My suggestion for Steve is that he comes out with a new book: Act Like a Lady ... but
Think Like an Escort (or Call Girl) to Take Advantage of all of the Chumps, Suckas,
and Tricks in Society. Okay, okay. That title is a wee bit too long for Amazon.com

The reality is, that book was already written a long time ago ... but no one has ever
been able to identify the man or woman who wrote it. And every woman who has
ever benefited from an endless string of free meals, free movies, and free concerts
will never publicly admit to reading it. They just smile, go about their business, and
say, "Thank God for men who think like Steve Harvey. He is a true treasure." And
this is why we have a nation full of women who are being socialized to become
nothing more than a gold-digging whore and a variation of an 'Escort.'

Men's time, attention, and social companionship is valuable too. Remember

that.
Examining the women who
want men's attention, but at
the same time - they don't
Do you know what it means to 'harass' someone? According to just about every
dictionary available, to 'harass' someone means to continuously or repeatedly bother
someone, or seek attention from someone, when they have already made it clear
that they have no desire to interact with you any further.

Google Images

So what this means is, if you are a man and you approach a woman, initiate a
conversation with her, and you eventually let her know that you are interested in
sharing her company in some sort of romantic and/or sexual manner ... and that
particular woman of interest quickly and straightforwardly conveys to you that she
has no interest in sharing your company in any sort of erotically intimate manner ...
and then you as a man ignore her initial attempt at rejecting you and proceed to
become even more persistent with your sexual advances, then you would be guilty of
'sexual harassment.'

If you as a man take it a step or two further, and you begin touching the woman,
groping the woman, and aggressively caressing her body without her permission,
you have now escalated from sexual harassment to sexual assault.

Message to all men: when a woman looks you directly in your eyes, and verbally
communicates to you that she has no interest in sharing your company in any sort of
romantic and/or sexual manner, believe her. 99% chance, she is being sincere in
expressing her lack of interest.
If all women in society were to make it clear to all men when they are interested in a
guy, and when they are not interested in a guy, a lot of interactions between men
and women would unfold in a much more smooth, uncomplicated, cut and dry
manner.

Here is the problem: There are a lot of women in society who want to capture a
man's attention ... but at the same time, they do not. This columnist refers to these
women as 'Timewasters.' Other men in society would refer to them as 'Attention
Whores' or 'C*ck Teasers.'

Example #1: A woman who frequently posts photos of herself in scantily clad attire,
such as lingerie, to motivate men to flatter her, tell her how beautiful she is and how
sexy she is, but in reality, she has no interest whatsoever in sharing the company of
the men who are posting comments on her Facebook or Twitter page that are
representative of the men admiring her body and lusting after her sexual
companionship.

Why do this?

Example #2: A woman who frequently walks outside wearing tight, sheer 'leggings'
that show off her small waist and round buttocks for every man she comes in contact
with to view and admire ... but if too many of those men begin to 'catcall' her or
simply express loud, verbal compliments at her body and her attire ... all of the
sudden these men are guilty of 'street harassment.'

Why wear such an outfit if you know ahead of time what type of reaction it is going to
provoke from men?

These two examples of women's behavior highlight one of the primary differences
between a woman's mentality and a man's mentality.

You see, very few if any (heterosexual) men will go out of their way to receive
flattering attention from women who they have no desire to be in a romantic
relationship with or no desire to engage in short-term non-monogamous 'casual' sex
with. Men rarely want 'attention just for the sake of attention.' A blowjob or a hand job
flatters a man's ego twenty times more than a verbal compliment from a woman.

Women, on the other hand, will wear tight, short mini-skirts during a visit to a local
bar or nightclub just for the sake of being flattered by the men present. Many of
those women will have no interest in dating or having sex with the men who they
come in contact with at that particular bar or nightclub, but the vast majority of the
time, those women will be more than willing to accept a man's offer of free drinks and
appetizers.

Women will pose nude in a magazine such as Playboy just to motivate men to
masturbate to their provocative and explicit photographs. Do you think that any of
the Playboy Centerfold models will actually engage in sexual relations with the
men who pleasure themselves while being aroused when staring at their revealing
photos? Of course not.
The reality is, most women want flattering attention from as many men who are
willing to give their ego and self-esteem a boost ... but once many of those men
begin to escalate from verbally expressing a flattering compliment to expressing a
strong desire to engage in sexual relations with these women within the next 24-48
hours, all of the sudden, many of these women will claim that they are being
'harassed' by these men.

If starting tonight, men all over the world were to universally decide to never
approach women any longer, never initiate a conversation with them any longer,
never flatter them at any point in the future, and never express any sort of romantic
or sexual interest in women online or out on the streets, women would lose their
minds. Seriously.

One minute, there are blog entries on the internet with headlines such as, "Where
have all of the 'real' men with bold confidence gone? Men these days expect women
to approach them first!" Then, the next minute, men are told to watch a video entitled
"10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman" that is supposed to highlight the
"horrible epidemic" of what one organization (HollaBack) has categorized as 'street
harassment.'

When you carefully examine the video (above, at the top of the article), it would be
hard for any man or even an objective-minded woman to categorize the behavior
exhibited by the men as true 'harassment.'

Note: After watching the 'catcall' video, please watch this video of Comedian and
Entertainer Russell Brand engaging in what most women would refer to as
'lighthearted flirting.' Not 'harassment' ... but 'flirting.' (Observation: Brand
expresses comments that are way more bold, provocative, and X-rated than
anything said by the men in the 'catcall' video, but yet no feminist organization is up
in arms about Brand's behavior toward these professional women)

Not once did the actress (Shoshana Roberts) say to these men, "Please leave me
alone...." or "Please stop talking to me ..." or "You have a zero percent chance of
ever having sex with me ...." Ms. Roberts never, ever rejected any of these men
(because she is an actress who was more-than-likely paid to 'ignore' these men's
comments).

If a woman really wants to be left alone, she needs to verbalize that thought to men if
she wants to make her point emphatically clear. If a woman has no interest in
socially interacting with a man, she needs to verbalize that to the man who is
attempting to converse with her so that there are no miscommunications or
misinterpretations. If a woman does not want a man hitting on her for sex, she needs
to verbalize that to a man who is attempting to seduce her in order to make her lack
of interest crystal clear.

The reality is, the vast majority of women will not verbalize their lack of romantic or
sexual interest to men. Why not? Because they want to keep their 'options' open in
case one or more of these men offer them a free meal, a free movie, an offer of
employment, or anything else that the woman perceives as being of tangible and/or
intangible value. Because deep-down, many of them love knowing that sexually
desperate and horny men crave to have sex with them, but will never gain the
opportunity. These manipulative women love knowing that they have the power to
leave a man feeling egotistically and sexually frustrated.

Anyone could make the argument that most handsome professional athletes are
'harassed' by female groupies every week. Anyone could make the argument that
most male strippers with slim, lean, athletically proportioned physiques are
'harassed' by horny, sexually aggressive women at their jobs regularly. Anyone could
argue that many talented male singers, musicians, and movie stars are 'harassed' by
screaming, fanatical female fans relentlessly in public.

Women, if you want the 'no means no' campaign to have any shred of validity, then
you need to actually say, "NO. I am not interested in dating you or having sex with
you. Period." Unless a man is inebriated, psychotic, or emotionally disturbed, he will
then leave you alone indefinitely.

Be honest ... as a manipulative woman that is not what you want. You do not want to
be indefinitely ignored.

Because if you did, you would go an entire week without taking a bath.

Because if you did, you would purchase a 'fake' engagement ring and put it on your
finger.

Because if you did, you would avoid wearing make-up and you would wear clothing
that was plain, 'homely' and conservative.

Admit it. You want flattering and lustful attention from most men you encounter ...
even if you have no interest in actually engaging in sex with those men.

Men call that 'game-playing' and 'c*ck-teasing.'

You call it 'street harassment.'

Others call videos like the one produced by Rob Bliss "total bullsh**."

If 'no means no,' then say 'no' . . . and mean it.

Men's desire for sex: the
'front door,' the 'side door,'
and the 'back door'
Former beloved entertainer Bill Cosby is essentially in a 'lose-lose' situation. If Mr.
Cosby continues to refuse to publicly address the multiple allegations against him by
various women that he gave them drugs, and then proceeded to sexually assault
them and/or date-rape them, then he will appear to be guilty to the vast majority of
men and women in the general public. On the other hand, if Mr. Cosby was to
confess that he engaged in consensual sex with all of these women, his image will
still be tainted because then he would be, at minimum, forever known as a 'serial
adulterer' instead of a 'serial date-rapist.'

The first thought most men have is, "Why would a man who is a wealthy, famous,
powerful celebrity need to drug and date-rape women? Wouldn't a guy like Bill Cosby
have hundreds of female groupies that would be more-than-willing to satisfy his
sexual desires and urges?"

For the most part, no. I remember years ago, I read an interview with an African-
American comedian by the name of Franklyn Ajaye. At one point during the
interview, Ajaye was asked how he handled all of the attention he received from
female groupies. Ajaye responded by telling the interviewer that unlike many popular
male singers, musicians, professional athletes, and sex symbol type movie stars,
comics don't really have 'groupies.' Ajaye said that comics have male and female
'fans,' but not 'groupies.'

Most men who are considered to be hilariously funny are usually not perceived by
women to be 'sexy.' Even well-known comedian and movie star Eddie
Murphy admitted that once. Murphy once said, "A man can be funny ... and he can
be sexy ... but rarely can he be both at the exact same moment in time." I remember
a few years back, I interviewed a comedian and book author by the name of Ian
Coburn on my talk radio podcast program, Upfront & Straightforward. During the
interview, Coburn briefly expressed comments that would co-sign with the
sentiments of Ajaye and Murphy.

Coburn basically said that before he became a stand-up comic, he thought he would
have 'female groupies' waiting for him after each show to offer him the opportunity to
have sex with them. He said the reality of most comedians is that most of the women
want to share their company in a purely platonic manner, so that the comedian can
entertain them and make them giggle and laugh, but the vast majority of the comic's
female fans do not want to actually have sex with the comedians simply because
they possess a great sense of humor.
Think about it. Name a comedian who later made a career for himself as an adult
film actor (i.e., porn star) or gigolo. Similarly, name an adult film actor or gigolo who
later became a stand-up comic and/or prolific comedy writer. Having problems
thinking of even one name? Exactly.

The first point in this article is not to slam the vast majority of comedians for having a
lack of sex appeal with women, but rather to point out that just because a man is a
comedic actor or stand-up comic with wealth, fame, and Entertainment Industry
influence does not necessarily mean that this man is going to have beautiful, sexy
women throwing themselves at him sexually on a regular basis.

For the second major point of this article, let's move on to some basic facts about
men:

1. All heterosexual men are interested in having sex with women, unless
they have reached a point of complete impotence (and in today's society,
there are various pharmaceutical pills that men can consume to
overcome erectile dysfunction and impotence)

2. Very few heterosexual men with a strong sex drive genuinely enjoy
sharing the company of an attractive woman with a high degree of sex
appeal without wanting to make at least one attempt to have sex with her.

3. Speaking of comedians, superstar comic Dave Chappelle once said in

one of his comedy bits that the #1 reason why most men seek to become
wealthy, famous, and powerful is so that they attract and seduce more
women. (Chappelle actually said, "Most men would be content with living
in a cardboard box if they knew they could get laid with women in
it," which to a large degree is a valid statement)

If you are a woman reading this article, and by some chance you were naive to those
three basic facts, please make a mental note. What do these three facts mean for
you as a woman? It basically means that if you are an attractive, sexy aspiring
actress or singer, very few men are going to offer to help you improve your career
success "just because." The vast majority of men who are offering to help you
improve your career are doing so because they want to motivate you to agree to
have sex with them (truthfully, deep-down most women who pursue a career in
media and/or the Entertainment Industry know this; here is a previous article
related to this).

As mentioned in previous articles in this column, very few men seek out 'purely
platonic' friendships with women. Men are just not wired that way. Again, when a
man is in the company of a woman he finds attractive and sexually appealing, he is
always going to want to have sex with that woman at least once. For a man, being
around women who they find sexually appealing and not being able to have sex with
them is like sitting in front of a plate full of food and not being able to at least nibble
on or sample the food items on that plate. The vast majority of men 'settle' for purely
platonic friendships with women more so than they specifically seek them out.
Finally, for the third and most important point of this article, we will examine how
most men go about letting women know they have an interest in having sex with
them. Generally speaking, there are three different ways that all heterosexual men
will attempt to communicate their desire to have sex with a woman:

The 'Front Door' method, the 'Side Door' method, or the 'Back Door' method.

1) Communicating your desire to have sex with a woman via the 'Front Door':

This is when a man approaches a woman, initiates a conversation with her, and
proceeds to let that woman know fairly quickly in a confident, upfront, specific,
straight-to-the-point manner that he wants to have sex with her. He feels that either
the woman is going to say, "Yes, I am interested in having sex with you ..." or "No, I
am not interested in having sex with you ..." (As my readers and followers know, I
refer to this type of interpersonal communication style as 'Mode One' Behavior)

Ideally, all men want to pursue sex with a woman by going through the 'Front Door,'
but the reality is, many factions of society and many women in society frown on such
direct, unapologetically candid expressions of sexual interest. Some women have
been known to categorize the 'Front Door' approach as 'rude,' 'crass,' 'socially
inappropriate,' and/or even 'disrespectful.' If you are a man, and you attempt to use
the bold 'Front Door' approach with a business colleague or professional associate,
nine times out of ten, you will be accused of sexual harassment.

Many women love and highly respect the upfront, straightforward 'Front Door'
approach ... but there are an equal if not greater number of women who do not
particularly care for it.

And because of the women who criticize and express some degree of disdain toward
that type of approach, we have men who resort to the next option, which is . . .

2) Communicating your desire to have sex with a woman via the 'Side Door':

When men have been made to feel that executing the 'Front Door' method is going
to cause them to be abruptly rejected, cause them to be harshly criticized or insulted,
or cause them to be treated by women and other friends as some sort of social
pariah, then their next option is to attempt to be very 'indirect' and 'vague and
ambiguous' when they want to have sex with a woman. Most men who are
professional "pick up artists" (PUAs) tend to teach men how to seduce women into
having sex with them by being 'indirect.'

One example of a man being indirect would be to invite a woman over to his place
under the misleading guise of enjoying an evening of entertaining conversation and a
delicious dinner, and then as the night starts drawing to a close, the man simply
starts 'making moves' on the woman (e.g., attempting to kiss her and make out with
her), and then hopes that the kissing and petting eventually leads to full blown
intercourse and/or oral sex. Many PUA types endorse multiple variations of this
scenario to their clients and students.
Another common example is what I refer to as "FunClubbing." Just last Thursday, I
discussed this concept on my talk radio podcast program. FunClubbin' is when a
man initially, temporarily, or indefinitely 'pretends' as though he is content with being
a woman's purely platonic male 'friend,' but deep-down, he wants a relationship with
that woman that is more romantic and/or sexual in nature. Some men will FunClub
with women for a few weeks or a few months ... all that time hoping that the woman
will find it in her generous and erotic heart to offer that man the opportunity to have
sex with her. Many men will FunClub with women for years, or even decades, having
their fingers crossed for that 'one lucky day' that the woman will finally say, "Okay ...
you've been my friend for a while ... and now, I think it is time you should be
rewarded for your loyal and patient friendship. Let's go ahead and have sex."

Quickly look above and reference my "three basic facts" of men and their desire for
sex. Nineteen out of every twenty (heterosexual) men that a woman meets has no
interest in interacting with her in a purely platonic manner. If you do not believe this
strong assertion ... ask the men themselves. I challenge you to. I dare you to. Matter
of fact, I triple-dare you to.

If you are a woman reading this article, the next time you converse with one or more
of your so-called "platonic male friends," ask them one or more of these questions:

"[insert first name of your platonic male friend here] ... can I ask you something?
Would you mind if we transitioned from purely platonic friends to more of a 'friends-
with-benefits' type relationship? Sometimes I just get really, really horny and I would
love it if we could at least occasionally exchange orgasms with one another. Is that
okay with you?"

"[insert first name of your platonic male friend here] ... can I ask you something? Are
you truly interested in being my platonic friend, or are you really just patiently waiting
for me to offer you the opportunity to engage in intercourse or oral sex with me?"

"[insert first name of your platonic male friend here] ... can I ask you something?
Since I am in-between boyfriends and you seem to be in-between girlfriends, would
you mind if we just indulge in regular or semi-regular no-strings-attached sex until we
each find our next long-term romantic partner?"

Do not ask these men these questions in a manner as if you are "joking" or "playing
around." Pose one of more of those three questions to the men in a very serious
manner. See what they say. Deep-down, you already know what over half of your
'platonic male friends' are going to say. Do not be delusional. (and I bet your ego will
be hurt by the few men who do genuinely say, "Sorry, but I have no interest in
engaging in sexual relations with you.")

The problem with FunClubbin', and many of the other 'indirect' methods, is that in the
long-run, it is just as much of a crapshoot and a numbers game as the more direct
methods of communicating your sexual desires and interests to women.

When a man is direct with women ... some women will reciprocate his desires and
interests, and many women will not. Similarly, when a man is indirect with women ...
a good number of women will give in and agree to have sex with him, but many other
women will only want to maintain nothing more than a purely platonic friendship with
him.

The big difference is, when a 'Front Door' guy gets rejected, he has not really
invested a significant amount of time, effort, or money in the pursuit of that woman's
romantic or sexual companionship, therefore, he does not usually feel bitter or
frustrated when his desires and interests are not reciprocated.

On the other hand, when a 'Side Door' guy gets rejected, 90% chance, he is going to
become angry, frustrated, and bitter in the long-run. Why? Because more-than-likely,
he invested a significant amount of time, effort, and in some cases money, only to
eventually end up as a woman's "male girlfriend" or "play brother."

At some point, that anger, sexual frustration, and bitterness turns into misogyny.
Especially in situations when a 'Side Door' guy gets rejected by his new 'female
friend,' but later observes this same 'female friend' reciprocating the sexual desires
of a 'Front Door' guy fairly quickly. Uh oh. Now, Mr. Side Door is going to become
really, really angry. Ladies and Gentleman, welcome to the world ... a brand new
member of the Misogynist-for-Life Club.

When a man is scared of being direct and frustrated over the time, effort, and money
he wasted after trying out a number of different 'indirect' methods of getting a woman
in bed, this man is now thinking of a new and different way to virtually "guarantee"
that he will end up in bed with a woman with hardly any time or money invested. That
brings us to . . .

3) Communicating your desire to have sex with a woman via the 'Back Door':

We have no idea if Bill Cosby actually drugged all of the women who claim to have
been drugged and subsequently date-raped them and we may not ever know. What
we do know is, there are other men in society who have no doubt gotten a woman
'sloppy drunk' and then date-raped them or put some type of 'date-rape drug' (such
as "roofies") in their food or drinks, and then proceeded to take advantage of them
in a non-consensual sexual manner.

As a man, when you have reached a point where you no longer want to 'gamble' with
women (i.e., be in a situation where there is a 50% chance a woman will agree to
have sex with you, but also a 50% chance that she will reject you), and you want
more of a 'sure thing' type scenario, you will throw all ethics, moral standards, and
any sense of honesty and integrity out the window. You want what you want, and
you will not allow anything to stop you from getting what you want ... and that
includes a woman's sexual companionship. You are in a mindset where you no
longer have a desire to 'ask' a woman for her sexual companionship. You want to
just 'demand' it and 'take' it.

Women say, "Oh my God! What would make a man think it is even remotely okay to
get a woman drunk and take advantage of her, or drug a woman and take advantage
of her?? That is SO WRONG!!!" Of course it is. But we do not want to get into a 'tit
for tat' list of the behavior that men exhibit toward women that is 'wrong' versus the
behavior that women exhibit toward men that is 'wrong.' There would be a laundry
list for members of both genders.

The reality is, the desire for sex among many men is strong. Very strong. Next to our
desire for oxygen to breath, our desire for food and beverages for nourishment, and
our desire for money to provide ourselves with shelter and the basics to survive in
life, there is arguably no stronger desire a man maintains than his desire to
experience an orgasm. Preferably, a man wants to experience an orgasm as a result
of intercourse or oral sex with a woman rather than masturbation.

Men who choose the 'Back Door' method do not care about 'right vs. wrong.' They
are past that point. They want what they want, and they want it now. When you
combine a man's insatiable desire for sex with a chauvinistic ego and a long-
standing sense of sexual frustration, you have just described the makeup of your
everyday serial date-rapist.

What is the bottom line?

Go back and read all of the past articles in this column. The advice given in this
column generally has the same exact theme time after time again.

The advice to women is simple: You need to be more receptive to a man exhibiting a
'Front Door' style of interpersonal communication with you as far as expressing his
romantic and/or sexual desires, interests, and intentions to you. Just because a man
straightforwardly lets you know he wants to have sex with you does not mean you
are obligated to reciprocate his sexual desires and interests, but at least you two will
have made it crystal clear where you two stand as far as interest and/or lack of
interest.

The advice to men is: So what if women criticize you for being "too forward," "too
candid," or even "rude" and "crass." So what. You cannot expect to receive
compliments on every aspect of your behavior all of the time. With many things you
do in life, it is inevitable that someone somewhere is going to dislike and/or disagree
with what you say, and how you say it. So damn what.

Expect that most women you communicate directly (via the 'Front Door') that you
want to have sex with them are going to criticize you for your candor, and maybe
even insult you because of your bold, forthright style of verbal communication. So
what. All you should care about is, are they interested in having sex with you? Or not
interested? If the woman is not interested, do not pester her or harass her. Simply
leave her alone immediately and do not waste your time and money "settling" for a
disingenuous platonic friendship. There is no upside to FunClubbin' with women.

No man should ever allow his ego and his sexual frustrations to get so out of control
that he even remotely entertains the thought of drugging a woman and date-raping
her. Such an option should be out of the question for men. The key words are
"should be."

Ladies, ask one of those three questions discussed above to your male "friends."
Take the initiative, be assertive, and ask those 'platonic male friends' of yours, "Are
you engaging in a conversation with me right now because you desire to have sex
with me at some point in the (near) future?"

I dare you. I double-dare you. I triple-dare you.

But I know you won't.

Columnist's informal survey finds some
women have sex rated as a low priority
There are two articles that this Examiner.com Columnist read in the last few weeks
that were interesting, to say the least.

Article #1: 50 reasons why a woman really DOES need a man! The list by Jane
Gordon, who is on her own for the first time in 30 years, is irreverent, poignant
and very funny...

Article #2: 50 reasons why a woman DOESN'T need a man: Claudia Connell's
response to Jane Gordon's reasons for needing a man

If you read both articles, you would assume that both women have the sexual libido
of a Catholic Church Nun ... or maybe both suffer to a degree from asexuality.
Neither woman mentions anything about wanting a man's sexual companionship. I
actually had an article published earlier this year (April 19, 2014) where I discussed
the concept of women who seek out male companions to become their 'Platonic
Boyfriend' or 'Platonic Husband.' You can refer to this article as "The 'Platonic
Husband' / 'Platonic Boyfriend' Concept, Part 2."

In the last few weeks, I became a registered member of an online matchmaking site
entitled BlackPeopleMeet. I wanted to find out just what the women who were
registered members were exactly and specifically looking for. Potential husbands?
Friends-with-Benefits Relationships? Casual sex partners? Short-term romantic
flings? Other?

So I proceeded to engage in inbox message exchanges, telephone conversations,

and/or Email message exchanges with a number of women on the BPM site (I sent
an informal questionnaire to approximately 200 women, and I received feedback
from 147 of those women).

What was most interesting about the feedback I received is that 59 of the 147
women who responded to my questions expressed that they were in no way, shape
or form searching for any type of 'sex companion.' Not even long-term, monogamous
sex (as opposed to short-term non-monogamous sex)? Nope.

If this small survey pool is able to serve as a microcosm of all women in society, that
means that roughly forty percent of all single women in society want a male
companion for every reason BUT sexual enjoyment and satisfaction.

A few examples . . .

[Note: First names and/or BPM user names have been changed to protect their
anonymity]

BPM user "MsTiredOfGame45" said,

"I hate to come across as conceited, but I can get sex anytime I want it. I have a
black book full of men's phone numbers of men who can pleasure me and satisfy me
sexually. But all of those men are players and womanizers. They are not looking to
settle down. I am looking for a man who can make me laugh, keep me company, and
help me raise my sons. I would actually prefer he have a very low sex drive, because
he would only get sex from me occasionally."

BPM user "YourLuckyLady2013" said,

"I am about to cancel my membership on this site because 99% of the men on BPM
are just looking for sex, sex, and more sex. My days of wanting sex on a daily and
weekly basis are way behind me. Now, I just want male companionship. I just want a
man that wants to be around me every day without expecting sex in return. Horny
men are so annoying to me."

BPM user "PrettyLegs1969" said,

"Am I looking for a long-term sexual companion? To be honest, not really. Most of
the men I have been with do not satisfy me. I have a dresser drawer full of vibrators,
dildos, bullets, eggs, and other assorted sex toys to help me get off when I need to
get off. I have not had intercourse with a man in over four years now, and I really
don't miss it. I am more so on this site to meet a man to just keep me company. To
give me hugs when I need them, and help take some of the financial load off of me,
being a single mother. If all I wanted was sex, I could go to my local bar and bring a
guy back home. Getting sex is no challenge for a woman who keeps herself slim and
in good shape."

BPM user "1GreatCatch4You" said,

"Why would you even ask me what type of sexual companion am I looking for? This
just shows that men and women are worlds apart in their way of thinking. I am not on
this site looking for a Booty Call!! I am looking for a long-term partner, and hopefully
a husband!! And I would hope that my future husband is looking for a woman who is
a good cook, a great conversationalist, and just fun to be around. If having sex every
day is one of his top priorities, then he can surely look past me and move on to the
next woman. A companion and a sex partner are two different things! I want and
need a companion, not a sex partner!"

So ... wait a minute. Is using the terms 'male companion' and 'sex partner' in the
same sentence now considered an oxymoron?

I believe that these four women, along with many of the other women who
responded to my 'informal survey' should be on a site entitled, "The Sex Free
Marriage Zone" or "PlatonicFriends4Marriage.com" instead of being registered on an
online matchmaking site that promotes romantic connections between men and
women.

Here is what was even more interesting. BlackPeopleMeet.com offers seven

categories for you to choose from to let members of the opposite sex know what you
are in the market for: 1) "Marriage" 2) "Serious Relationship" 3) "Casual
Relationship" 4) "Travel Partner" 5) "Friendship" 6) "Pen Pal" 7) "Any / All"

Out of the 59 women who expressed that they are essentially looking for a 'Platonic
Boyfriend' or 'Platonic Husband,' only eighteen of them had "Friendship" listed in
their profiles. At least 7 of the 59 women had "Casual Relationship" listed along with
"Serious Relationship" and/or "Marriage."

Have so many women become this delusional in today's society where they actually
think that any percentage of single heterosexual men between the ages of 21 and
59+ would really pay money to register as a member of an online matchmaking site
to find a 'platonic female friend' to become their long-term girlfriend or future wife? I
have met men in their early to mid-sixties who still want sex from women on a weekly
basis, let alone men who are in their thirties, forties or fifties.

I do not really have a harsh criticism of women who are looking for a purely platonic
companion. If that is what a woman's primary desire is ... more power to her. My
issue is that women should know, or at least assume, that just about all men who
pay for a membership on an online matchmaking service website are going to be
looking for regular or semi-regular sex. That should be a given. Furthermore, these
women should state their desire for primarily platonic male companionship upfront
and conspicuously. The desire for a 'Platonic Husband' should not be some sort of
"hidden agenda" or "underlying motive."

This is why men should never, ever give women the misleading impression that they
are 'content' with enjoying nothing more than a series of purely platonic interactions
with women. Because that type of disingenuous behavior on behalf of men leads to
women becoming unrealistic, if not flat-out delusional.

Final warning to men: As mentioned in my previous article on this subject, watch out
for women's "bait-and-switch" techniques (e.g., a woman behaving like she is really
into having sex with you BEFORE you propose to her ... but once you two get
married, the sexual activity slows down significantly, or worse, just comes to a
complete halt).

Happy New Year!

BDSM 101: 'Fifty Shades' of
varying degrees of Erotic
Domination and
Submission
(Note: This will be the first of two articles in this column that relate to the upcoming
release of the highly anticipated feature-film version of the popular erotic romance
novel, Fifty Shades of Grey. Next week, this column will offer a review of the film)

Mode One Multimedia, Inc.

There are many men and women who do not need any physical, psychological,
and/or emotional 'enhancements' in order to enjoy themselves sexually and
experience a pleasurable orgasm with their spouse, companion, or designated sex
partner. These men and women can simply take off their clothes, have their partner
become naked as well, and then proceed to engage in oral sex and/or intercourse to
the point of orgasm. Consider those men and women as "the lucky ones." Many
people refer to this type of sex as "vanilla" sex or simply "conservative and
conventional" sex.

For other men and women in society, there needs to be "something extra" involved
in the sex in order to 'get them off.' An added factor that makes the sex between the
two lovers feel kinkier and more out-of-the-ordinary. Many people refer to those who
prefer this type of sex as "kinky freaks" or "fetish lovers."

One very common 'enhancement' among men and women is what is known as
"Domination and Submission" type erotic activities. An acronym that is usually used
to describe such as sexual relationship is known as "BDSM," which stands
for Bondage - Domination - Sadism -Submission - Masochism. A number of studies,
including this one, have asserted that men and women who are involved in a
'BDSM' type sexual relationship tend to enjoy themselves more sexually and tend to
experience happier, more satisfying relationships and even experience better mental
health than those men and women involved in 'normal,' conservative, and
conventional type sexual relationships.

BDSM sexual relationships are not for everyone . . . but neither are
conservative and conventional sexual relationships.

Let's say you were to evaluate your desire to be erotically dominant and/or erotically
submissive on a scale from "1" to "5." The number '5' would represent that you have
a strong desire to be extremely dominant with your sex partners, and the number '1'
would represent that you are more-than-willing to be extremely obedient and
submissive to your sex partner and allow them to call all of the shots.

If you would rate yourself as somewhere between a '4' and a '5' on the dominant
end, or somewhere between a '1' and a '2' on the submissive end, this would
represent that entering into a BDSM type sexual relationship would be one that you
would probably find very exciting and gratifying in the short-run and/or the long-run.

If you are a man or woman whose self-evaluation falls somewhere between a '2.5'
and a '3.5,' this means that you are probably better off engaging in a more
conservative and conventional type sexual relationship with a man or woman.

"Yes Sir . . . I choose to obey all of your requests Sir."

Many have asked, "Is BDSM more or less erotic role-play? Like acting? Or is it more
'real'? The best answer is, 'either / or." Many men and women are only dominant and
submissive within the context of sex and erotic interactions. There are some other
men and women who maintain their sense of dominance and submissiveness even
outside the context of sexual interplay. It really depends on the two (or more)
partners involved.

The most basic components of a BDSM relationship is how one partner refers to the
other. For example, if the male partner is the 'Top' or 'Dom,' then his female
partner(s) usually refer to him as 'Sir,' 'Master,' 'My King,' and/or 'Daddy.' If the
woman is the more erotically dominant partner, then the man involved with her will
refer to her as 'Mam,' 'My Mistress,' 'My Goddess,' and/or 'My Queen.' The
submissive partner involved always shows the dominant partner the highest degree
of respect and deference when speaking to them.

Along with that, another basic component of a BDSM type sexual relationship is the
role of rewards and discipline. For example, if a male submissive has obeyed all of
the commands and requests of his Dominant Mistress, he is referred to as an
"Obedient Good Boy." If he has failed to honor her requests, he is considered to be a
"Disobedient Bad Boy" and has to suffer some sexual-related 'punishment' or
disciplinary action. The same goes for female submissives who have committed
themselves to being obedient to their male Doms.

What if I enjoy playing the role of the both the Dominant AND the Submissive?

Speaking of Doms, a man or woman who always fulfills the role of the dominant
partner is referred to as a 'Top' or 'Dom.' Similarly, a man or woman who always
fulfills the role of the submissive partner is referred to as a 'Bottom' or 'Sub.'

Then, you have some men and women who gain equal pleasure out of fulfilling the
role of both the 'Top' and the 'Bottom.' These men and women are referred to as a
'Switch' or 'Flexible.' A 'Switch' is one who usually behaves in both an 'erotically
dominant' and an 'erotically submissive' manner with the same partner (and of
course, this person's partner would also have to be a 'Switch' as well). A 'Flexible' is
one who rarely changes roles with the same partner, but they will have some
designated partners who they are the more dominant partner with while maintaining
relationships with other partners where they take on the role as the more submissive
partner.

Don't BDSM relationships lead to mental, emotional, and/or physical abuse

and even violence? Particularly against women?

A common myth frequently associated with BDSM relationships is that many of them
encourage and condone physical violence against women (and men) and/or harsh,
verbal abuse. This is not true.

Unhealthy and abusive relationships tend to happen when one partner is attempting
to 'force' or 'coerce' a female or male partner into being obedient and submissive to
them. Such behavior is not tolerated in the world of BDSM sex.

In any healthy, mutually consensual BDSM sexual relationship, the two partners
involved come to an agreement on what will be allowed between the two (both
sexually and non-sexually) and what will not be allowed. Many partners who are
erotically involved in a BDSM type sexual relationship sometimes even go as far as
to sign written contracts with each other (the upcoming film, Fifty Shades of
Grey even includes a scene where the two leads sign a contract).

For example, in a normal, conventional sexual relationship ... the terms "no," "stop,"
and "please stop" are very valid terms and requests that should be taken seriously
immediately. But in a BDSM sexual relationship, the terms "no" and "please stop" are
more so representative of "I really do not want you to stop ... I just want to give you
some token resistance and defiance." Instead, in the world of BDSM, the two (or
more) partners use what is known as "safewords."

A safeword is usually a color or a fruit, and it is usually red (i.e., "I really want you to
stop") or yellow (i.e., "I do not want you to stop completely, but I do want you to pull
back and tone things down a bit") in theme. Examples of common safewords would
be "red," "strawberries," "yellow," or "bananas." In a BDSM relationship, if there is
any physical discipline involved (such as being whipped, spanked, bitten, paddled,
etc.), the 'Sub' or 'Bottom' has to offer their consent and agreement to such behavior
at the beginning of the relationship (if a contract is involved, they have to sign the
contract).

Contrary to BDSM rumors and negative propaganda, just because a man or woman
is enthusiastically into the BDSM lifestyle does not automatically make them
misandrists, misogynists, mentally ill or psychotic, or extremely perverted. A few?
Maybe. Studies show that the vast majority of men and women who are into the
BDSM lifestyle are mentally healthy, 'normal,' and well-adjusted. They just very much
like for their sexual activities to be very kinky and out-of-the-ordinary.

Will my partner dominate me in public? Around others? Or only in private

around others who know about our relationship?

As mentioned, different couples and different men and women involved in the BDSM
lifestyle conduct their Dominant-Submissive relationships very differently.

On a very basic and minimal level, the domination is primarily verbal and
psychological, and usually conducted in private or only around others involved in the
BDSM lifestyle. On the opposite extreme, there are some men and women who
openly dominate their partners while in the company of the general public. Some
women and men have been known to wear "bondage collars" (which are similar in
theme to a dog collar) while out in public to let others know that they are their
partner's submissive partner.

Once again, no man or woman should ever allow themselves to feel "forced" or
"coerced" to be submissive to their partner ... and particularly, while in public. Such
behavior should only be exhibited if the submissive partner actually 'gets off' on
being dominated and humiliated in a public manner (this type of behavior relates to
being what is known as a 'sadist' and a 'masochist.' A sadist is generally someone
who gains both egotistical and sexual pleasure out of inflicting emotional and
physical pain on a submissive partner, as well as out of dominating, embarrassing,
and humiliating their submissive partner in public or around others; A masochist is
just the opposite - this is a man or woman who experiences erotic pleasure and
satisfaction from being subjected to emotional and/or physical pain and discomfort,
and from being dominated and humiliated in public or around others).

Aren't there groups you can join or clubs you can visit in order to meet others
who are into the BDSM lifestyle?

For those men and women who currently do not have a designated partner to submit
to and/or to dominate, but may be looking for one, there are groups all over the
world that sponsor 'sex parties' or 'fetish events.' There are also certain nightclubs
and 'dungeons' you can visit in order to meet dominant partners and/or submissive
partners. Usually, when you attend these types of parties or clubs, you have to
adhere to their rules and their dress code (typically, you have to wear something
made of latex and/or leather as opposed to conventional clothing).
Many men and women even pay others to verbally and/or physically dominate them.
Many women in various cities across the country and the world operate as either a
face-to-face Dominatrix or at minimum, an over-the-telephone Dominant Mistress.
Many of these women earn anywhere from high five figures to seven-figure salaries.
Many men also act as "Professional Dominant Sirs" who get paid by the hour, the
day, the weekend, or longer by one or more female clients or even couples (these
men usually offer both face-to-face sessions and over-the-telephone sessions).
Some professionals only cater to heterosexual members of the opposite sex, while
others serve exclusively Gay and Lesbian clients. Many others have clients of both
genders who are heterosexual, bisexual, and Gay or Lesbian.

Other than the upcoming film, Fifty Shades of Grey, what other feature-films
have a storyline that highlights the BDSM lifestyle?

Here would be a list of at least ten feature-films that include one or more characters
in the story that are involved with the BDSM lifestyle ... either publicly and/or
privately:

(listed in alphabetical order)

9 1/2 Weeks

After Fall, Winter

Belle de Jour

Blue Velvet

Body of Evidence

A Dangerous Method

Nymphomaniac: Vol I and Vol II

The Piano Teacher

Secretary (this film is arguably the best of the ten)

The Story of O

A good book on BDSM relationships for beginners is one entitled, How To Start A
Kinky (BDSM) Relationship: The Definitive Guide to Starting and Sustaining a
Healthy, Loving, Satisfying Alternative Relationship by James Amoureux.

Next week: A review of the BDSM-themed film, Fifty Shades of Grey starring Jamie Dornan
and Dakota Johnson
Fifty Shades of Grey
Review: Script very much
needed a rewrite and
spicing up
Fifty Shades of Grey
Rating:
Star
Star
Star
Star
Star

If the highly anticipated 2015 romantic drama Fifty Shades of Grey ends up
collecting over forty million dollars at the box office by the end of the weekend, be
prepared to give ninety-percent of the credit to Universal Pictures and Focus
Features' marketing and "hype" department.

This movie should be renamed "Fifty Shades of BEEN THERE, DONE THAT." This
movie - which is based on the best-selling erotica romance novel by E.L. James - is
basically a blend of a number of romantic comedies and dramas such
as Boomerang, 9 1/2 Weeks, Pretty Woman, Secretary, and The Thomas Crown
Affair among other feature-film titles.

Now, in the film's defense, it was not nearly as bad as some movie critics and
feminist groups are making it out to be. Fifty Shades in no way, shape, or form
encourages and/or condones domestic violence or date-rape as some have
suggested. Matter of fact, if anything, the supposed-to-be BDSM oriented scenes
were way too basic and conventional. Both 9 1/2 Weeks and Secretary were far
better films that introduced novice moviegoers into the world of BDSM (Bondage /
Discipline / Domination / Sadism / Submission / Masochism - see last week's
article in this column for more details about the BDSM sexual lifestyle).

In a nutshell, if you go see this movie with extremely high expectations ... you will
leave the theater feeling very, very disappointed. If you go see this movie expecting
it to be complete trash and material for endless ridicule, then you will more-than-
likely leave the movie theater feeling a wee bit pleasantly surprised.

The problem with the movie is that it does not really have any "Oh sh**!! I cannot
believe he / she just did that / said that!!" moments in it. The movie literally does not
have one true "controversial" sex scene that is even remotely worth discussing with
your friends and co-workers on Monday. The movie, directed by Sam Taylor-
Johnson from an adapted screenplay by Kelly Marcel, does not enter into any truly
'taboo' erotica areas at all.

For starters, Fifty Shades does a horrible job representing the BDSM sexual lifestyle.
No real-life BDSM influenced 'Top' or 'Dom' would behave like the lead male
character, billionaire bachelor Christian Grey (Actor Jamie Dornan). Grey, as played
by Dornan and/or as written by Marcel, was way too emotionally high-strung to
perform as a true 'Dom' type.

Grey seemed to be more smitten by the virginal Anastasia Steele (Actress Dakota
Johnson, the daughter of Actor Don Johnson and Actress Melanie Griffith) than
vice versa. The character of Grey came across as way too jealous, possessive,
clingy, and needy, which are none of the characteristics that are exhibited by a real-
life erotically dominant male partner involved in a BDSM relationship with a female
'sub' or 'bottom.' Grey was just way 'too nice' to truly dominate Ana in a manner that
would leave those in the theater with their eyebrows raised and jaws dropped.

Secondly, there was nothing really "out-of-the-ordinary" about their romantic

situation. If you (once again) take out the supposed-to-be BDSM elements from the
story, this is nothing more than a story about a man who was really just looking to
engage in a few weeks or a few months of non-monogamous casual sex with a
woman, but the woman quite naturally ends up wanting 'more' (i.e., she wants a
romantic relationship that is more long-term, emotionally profound, and exclusively
committed that will hopefully lead to marriage someday).

I mean, c'mon people. How many times have we seen a variation of this classic
romantic tale played out multiple times in a romantic drama or romantic comedy over
the last ten, twenty, or thirty years? Again, this movie was a classic case of "Okay ...
we have already covered this ground before a gazillion times. Been there, done
that."

Here are five suggested "rewrites" and alternative storylines that would have made
this film a much more interesting film to watch:

Alternative storyline #1: The character of Anastasia Steele was some of a "spoiled
brat" type (re: "bitch") who is an employee for Mr. Grey, and has a history of filing
false sexual harassment charges against her male co-workers and supervisors.
Enter CEO Mr. Grey, who takes matters into his own hands, and 'trains' Ms. Steele
(with good, hard, erotic spankings among other methods) how to be a good,
obedient, submissive employee.

Alternative storyline #2: The character of Anastasia Steele, again is more or less a
"spoiled brat" type who comes from a wealthy family and has always had her way
with men, but she ends up crossing paths with a rough-around-the-edges college
dropout named Christian Grey who is more raw, candid and sensuous than any man
she has ever connected with her in her young life. Her parents want her to have
nothing to do with this man, but she cannot bring herself to leave him alone.
Alternative storyline #3: The character of Anastasia Steele comes from a family of
Southern state racists, and she meets a smooth, erotically dominant African-
American Ivy League grad and up-and-coming business executive named Christian
Grey. Then, as the movie unfolds, we see a film that develops into an interesting
blend of Guess Who's Coming for Dinner meets 9 1/2 Weeks and/or Secretary.
Her friends and parents do not like their relationship as well as his friends and
parents, but the sexual chemistry between the two is off the charts.

Alternative storyline #4: The character of Christian Grey has a step-mother who is
a highly sought-after Dominatrix, and when freelance journalist Anastasia Steele
finds this out, she threatens to write a newspaper or magazine story about it until
Christian persuades her not to, and then subsequently introduces her to the world of
BDSM and Erotic Domination and Submission type lifestyles. Initially, she looks at
the world of BDSM as 'weird' and 'disgusting,' but then she slowly but surely finds
herself warming up to the BDSM lifestyle to the point of becoming addicted to it.

Alternative storyline #5: The character of Christian Grey is engaged to marry a

woman who is very much of a 'pretentious prude' type, and along comes
mischievous Anastasia Steele who is more open-minded, free-spirited, and erotically
uninhibited, and even somewhat promiscuous, and Ana ends up tempting Mr. Grey
into indulging in various sexual activities that he never has even thought about
engaging in before meeting Ana.

Any one of the above alternative storylines would have made Fifty Shades a much
more compelling and provocative movie to watch than the one that is playing in
movie theaters right now.

Prediction: If Fifty Shades takes in multi-millions at the box-office this weekend, it is

going to experience a significant drop-off in box-office revenues come weekend #2
and weekend #3. Guaranteed.

Final recommendation: Watch this snoozer at your own risk. Realistically, there are
male and female church-going Sunday School teachers who probably maintain a
kinkier sex life than Ana and Christian do in Fifty Shades.
5 behavior traits that cause
men to be perceived as
boring in the eyes of women
Quick quiz for male readers: Which of these five types of men generally experience
the most problems creating and maintaining the romantic and/or sexual interest of a
woman?

1. Men who do not earn at least $100,000 per year in salary

2. Men who are less than six feet tall

3. Men who do not have a college degree

4. Men who are more than fifteen pounds overweight

5. Men who have a reputation for being 'too nice' and overly
accommodating toward women

If you answered #1, you are wrong. There are many men who have never earned a
six figure salary in their adult life who have dated or had sex with dozens of women.

If you answered #2, you are wrong again. Anyone heard of Prince? Tom
Cruise? Pharrell Williams? All three are under six feet tall and have always been
popular with the ladies.

If you answered #3, you are probably a pretentious 'snob.' Many men who never
attended college have had their share of wives, girlfriends, and sex partners.

If you answered #4, you are wrong ... but that would be a fair response. Many
women prefer not to have an obese man as a spouse or romantic partner, but
generally speaking, it has never hurt a man too much if he happens to have a few
'added pounds' on his physique.

If you answered #5 ... you are pretty much right on the money. You will rarely find a
man who has a reputation for being a "ladies' man" and/or a prolific "womanizer"
whose behavior is frequently described as 'too nice.' The label 'too nice' is simply
woman-speak for "boring." Once a man is categorized as being "too nice" or
"boring," this will usually mark the kiss of death for a man's romantic and sexual
success with women, and will almost always land a man in a woman's "friend zone"
for life.

Below are five specific personality traits and behavioral characteristics that very
frequently tend to cause a man to be perceived as 'too nice' and/or 'boring' in the
long run:
"Boring" Personality Trait #5: You flatter women too excessively

Comment: Many men operate under the mistaken assumption that if you repeatedly
compliment a woman's looks, sex appeal, and overall behavior and personality, that
you will earn a high number of "brownie points" with women, and that at some point,
you will be able to 'cash in' those 'brownie points' for an opportunity to be that
woman's next romantic companion or casual sex partner. Uhm . . . no. Not gonna
happen.

How many times do you need to tell comedian Kevin Hart he's funny? How many
times do you need to tell NBA star LeBron James that he is a good basketball
player? How many times do you need to tell Adam Levine that he is a good singer?
A compliment that is expressed one time is usually very much appreciated by the
recipient, but once someone begins to express excessive flattery, it comes across as
'fawning' and even starts to be perceived as 'creepy' and annoying.

Many women love to be repeatedly flattered by men who they view as "male
girlfriend" types or purely platonic "play brother" types, but the vast majority of
women actually get turned off when men who they view as romantic companion
material or casual sex fling material begin to overwhelm them with flattering
comments about their looks and/or personality.

Best advice: Always keep flattery to a bare minimum. As a man, the most flattering
gesture you can extend to a woman is simply offering her the opportunity to engage
in a conversation with you and share your company for more than five minutes. (for
more about excessive flattery and 'empty' compliments, click here)

"Boring" Personality Trait #4: You engage in too many trivial, gossip-oriented
conversations with women

Comment: Many women love to gossip. Some women only allow their episodes of
gossip to include their close girlfriends, but many women like to include men into
their gossip-fest type conversations. If you are a man with a romantic or sexual
interest in a woman, do not make it a habit to exchange gossip with women.

Nothing sets you up to be viewed by a woman as a "male girlfriend" and/or "play

brother" more than when you allow yourself to take part in conversations with women
that are heavy on trivial gossip. No man who is ambitious and successful in life sits
around gossiping about other people on a daily, weekly, or even monthly basis. Men
who make things happen in life do not have time to gossip about others. If anything,
they are the men who are being gossiped about.

Even beyond gossip, conversations about "trivial matters" should be avoided period.
Never talk with women "just to hear the sound of your own voice," or to present
yourself as an "empathetic listening ear" to a woman's issues and problems. Only
converse with women about matters that are of extreme importance to your life, her
life, and your (romantic or sexual) relationship with her in general.

Best advice: Do not allow yourself to gain a reputation as what Roc-a-Fella records
Co-Founder Damon Dash describes as a "Chatty Patty" (i.e., someone who has a
reputation for engaging in frequent episodes of gossip about other people).
Gossiping is much more of a Beta male trait than it is an Alpha male trait (for more
on Alpha males vs. Beta males, click here).

"Boring" Personality Trait #3: You are too quick to show women your
"financially generous" side

Comment: Have you ever known a woman to masturbate with the fingers of her right
hand while holding up a $100 bill with her left hand? Have you ever known a woman
to get sexually aroused when she calls her bank and the automated telephone
system lets her know that she has a lot of money in her checking and savings
account?

There has never been any scientific evidence that proves that money, or more
specifically, a man's financial generosity, directly leads to a woman becoming horny
for sex. If that were the case, no man who has ever been broke or unemployed at
any given point in time in their life would have ever been able to seduce a woman
into having sex with him.

Similar to flattering women too much and allowing yourself to become a woman's
"gossip buddy" and "empathetic listening ear" (i.e., "male girlfriend"), no behavioral
habit makes a man come across as needy, desperate, and in the long-run, a 'target'
to be used, abused, and then dumped by a woman than a man who is too quick to
offer to 'wine and dine' women and repeatedly show gestures of financial generosity.

Best advice: Never spend excessive amounts of money on women in order to gain
their romantic or sexual interest. Only spend money on women who have already
confirmed a romantic or sexual interest in you, and you simply want to show your
appreciation to them for how they have treated you with love and/or respect. Never
set yourself up to be a woman's "free meal ticket" or "informal Sugar Daddy." (for
more thoughts on spending too much money on women too quickly, click here).

"Boring" Personality Trait #2: You are too much of an overly accommodating
"People Pleaser" with women of interest

Comment: Do you consistently go out of your way to avoid criticisms and insults from
people, and particularly women? Do you pretend to agree with the opinions of others
(that deep-down you do not agree with) simply to make other people feel good
around you and favor your companionship? Do you go out of your way to please,
appease, and accommodate the needs, preferences, and desires of others while
sacrificing your own needs and desires being satisfied? If you answered 'yes' to one
or more of these questions, then you qualify as a genuine "People Pleaser."

'People pleasing' is more or less like a psychological or emotional 'addiction.' A man

(or woman) who is a People Pleaser is one who is deeply afraid of being harshly
criticized by others and generally disliked by others. These men and women want to
be 'liked' by literally each and every person that they come in contact with.

Contrary to common myths perpetuated in society, women are not sexually aroused
by men who are People Pleasers nor do they fantasize about being married to such
a man. Women love men who have a strong sense of backbone and maintain their
own strong opinions. No woman wants to regularly interact with a man who is
extremely difficult to get along with, but what is even worse is a man who is
essentially an acquiescent "doormat" for women.

Best advice: Never give a woman "too much respect." In other words, never treat a
woman significantly better than she treats you. Never consistently change, modify, or
suppress various aspects of your behavior and personality for the sole and specific
purpose of pleasing and accommodating a woman. (for more thoughts about slipping
into the role of the "People Pleaser," click here).

"Boring" Personality Trait #1: You are not the type of man who women
entertain the idea of engaging in enjoyable, satisfying sex with

Comment: Some men are taught at an early age that it is "socially inappropriate" to
talk about sex with a woman on a first date, as well as that talking about sex 'too
much' prevents you from being perceived as a well-mannered "gentleman." That is
all horse crap.

When you go out of your way to indefinitely hide or suppress your more erotically
uninhibited side, over a period of time women do not even look at you as a 'sexual
being' any longer. And that is much more of a 'bad' thing than a 'good' thing. You
never want a woman to express a comment such as, "I cannot evenpicture
you having sex." If such a comment is ever expressed to you by a woman of interest,
you might as well have that woman stamp your "Permanent Residence in [insert
woman's first and last name here]'s Friend Zone."

Best advice: It is always better to start off being 'too sexual' with a woman, and later
maybe 'tone things down' a bit than to start off pretending like sex is the absolute last
thing on your mind for days, weeks, or months, and then all of the sudden - out of
nowhere - all of your true sexual desires, interests, and intentions just start gushing
out all over the place and blatantly blurted out for no apparent reason. (for more
thoughts about not hiding your sexual side from women, clickhere and here).

Do "nice guys" finish last? They most certainly do. As a man, you should always
aspire to have the labels "nice" and/or "sweet" replaced with "charming," "intriguing,"
"romantic," or "seductive." The latter adjectives will always benefit a man more in the
long run with women of interest.
How would Indiana
Governor Mike Pence
respond to Lieut. Daniel
Kaffee? (satire)
Life imitates art, and art can imitate life. If you are big-time movie buff, have you ever
applied fictional characters and storylines to real-life scenarios?

Today, Indiana Governor Mike Pence held a press conference to express that he
wants the Indiana state legislators to 'fix' the Religious Freedom Restoration Act bill
that he signed on Thursday, March 27, 2015 and requested that the legislators add
language to the bill that will provide further clarification that the bill does not in any
way allow, encourage, and/or condone blatant discrimination against those men,
women and couples from the LGBT Community.

This column decided to ask the question, "What if Governor Pence was being
interrogated by the fictional character of Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee?" (In the 1992
courtroom drama, A Few Good Men, Lieutenant Kaffee was portrayed by Actor
and Box-Office Movie Star, Tom Cruise)

Here is an example of how things might go . . .

Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee: Governor, do you read bills that come across your desk
thoroughly .... or do you just say to yourself, "I'm sure this warrants my signature. I
don't really need to read through this. I am going to just go ahead and sign it."?

Indiana Governor Mike Pence: I read everything thoroughly. I am the Governor.

Lt. Kaffee: Given what you just said, I would assume that when you read the details
of the original Religious Freedom Reformation Act bill you signed recently, it was
CLEAR to you that there was no wording included in it that could lead to blatant
discrimination of Gay and Lesbian individuals and couples by private businesses,
correct?

Governor Pence: Crystal.

Lt. Kaffee: Any chance, you don't know how to read and you are a functioning
illiterate?

Governor Pence: No.

Lt. Kaffee: Any chance, you are so stuck in your politically conservative ways that
you really didn't give a fu** about the rights of Gays and Lesbians?

Governor Pence: No.

Lt. Kaffee: Any chance the liberals in Indiana warned you that you signing this bill
could create a national firestorm, and cause the State of Indiana's reputation to
suffer, and your response was, "Fu** you liberals. I don't give a damn about you."

Governor Pence: No. Of course not. (pause) Let me ask you something son. Have
you ever served time as an elected official?

Lt. Kaffee: No sir.

Governor Pence: Have you ever spent an evening in a room with nothing but
members from the Religious Right?

Lt. Kaffee: No sir.

Governor Pence: Ever had various groups of people contribute large amounts of
money to your campaign fund, and then demand that you look out for their interests
and their sense of morals, values, and personal ethics in order to show your
gratitude?

Lt. Kaffee: No sir.

Governor Pence: I look out for the interests of the people who put me in office.
Always have, and always will. Are we clear?

Lt. Kaffee: Yes sir.

Governor Pence: No ... ARE WE CLEAR?

Lt. Kaffee: Crystal. (pause) Governor, I just have one more question. If when the
Religious Freedom Act Bill was presented to you ... and you read it very, very
thoroughly to make sure that the bill did not in any way encourage, condone, or
overlook behavior by private businesses that could be considered 'discriminatory' ...
then why the need to ask the State of Indiana legislators now for a 'fix' and for
language that further clarifies that private businesses can in no way, shape or form
discriminate against Gay and/or Lesbian men, women and couples and others who
they may have 'religious criticisms' of based on their faith, and harsh, philosophical
differences with based on their chosen lifestyle?

[Governor Pence does not response immediately]

Lt. Kaffee: Governor?

Governor Pence: You want answers . . .

Lt. Kaffee: I think I'm entitled to them.

Governor Pence (angry): Do YOU .. WANT ... ANSWERS?!?

Lt. Kaffee: I WANT THE TRUTH!!!

Governor Pence: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. (pause) Son, we live in a
world that allows damn near anyone to do whatever the hell they want to do.
Sexually, morally, and otherwise. Consequently, we need a group of people that are
going to make sure that this country does not turn into a cesspool of moral and
sexual deviants. Who is going to prevent that from happening? President
Obama? T.D. Jakes? Hillary Clinton? Jon Stewart for Christ's sake?!? I have a
greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for fans of the
canceled show, Will and Grace as well as befriend the fans of various television
series such as Glee, The New Normal, and Modern Family. You have that luxury.
You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: That this Religious Freedom bill,
while controversial, will restore traditional morals and values in society. And my
leadership, while seemingly misguided and perceived as prejudiced and
discriminatory in your mind, will restore traditional morals and values in society. You
don't want the truth, because deep down, behind your Gay and Lesbian friends
backs, you want people like me standing up for the traditional Americans who want
to maintain good, old fashioned morals and values. People like me use words like
honor, monogamy, loyalty, and marriage between heterosexual men and women.
We use these terms and phrases as the backbone to a life spent dedicated to
creating traditional family lifestyles. You people on the far left want everyone to have
freedom and rights! Whos next? Pedophiles? Those who are into bestiality
and zoophilia? I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man
who has no desire to protect the rights of religious heterosexuals, but is willing to
protect the rights of those who view heterosexuality as if it were the 'exception to the
rule.' I'd prefer you just said, "Governor ... you are the leader of the State of Indiana,
so do whatever you see fit to do," and then went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest
you run for public office and make a stand for what you truly believe in morally.
Either way, I don't give a DAMN WHAT YOU THINK YOU ARE ENTITLED TO.

Lt. Kaffee: Did you sign the original bill knowing that it had the potential to lead to
blatant discrimination against those from the LGBT Community ...

Governor Pence: We will fix this ... and then we will move forward, so . . .
(interrupted by Kaffee)

Lt. Kaffee: Did you sign the original bill knowing it's full implications?!?

Governor Pence: YOU GODDAMN RIGHT I DID!!!

Every liberal in the State of Indiana as well as all over the world looks at Governor
Pence like, "Oh my God!!"
Feedback from Readers
#18: Female readers
respond to '50 Shades,'
online dating
Welcome to the 18th Edition of Feedback from Readers. As most of my long-time
readers know, I usually feature feedback I have received from my male and female
readers after every five-to-seven articles that have been published for this column.
Since my last installment of Feedback from Readers, I have had six articles, one
movie review, and one satirical piece. The vast majority of the feedback I received in
the last few weeks came from female readers.

Let's go ahead and get started, shall we . . .

[Note: Some of the first names have been changed for the sake of anonymity, and
many questions and/or comments may have been edited, condensed or
paraphrased to some degree in order to either save space or correct spelling and
grammatical errors]

Email feedback in response to the article, TV Talk Show Host Steve Harvey points
out the #1 problem with dating today

From Tracie D.:

"Alan, are you married? And if you are not married, do you have a daughter?

Criticize Steve Harvey and his advice all you want, but Mr. Harvey has a wife and a
daughter. So in my opinion, he knows what he is talking about.

I have done my Google research on you Mr. Currie, and as far as I know, you have
never been married and you do not have any biological daughters (if you do have
one, she is not listed on your Wikipedia page). So no wonder your advice is terribly
skewed toward helping out womanizing bachelors.

I believe a man should always spend money on a woman to make her feel special.
No woman should ever be paying for a first date, second date, or third date! My ex-
husband always lavished me with gifts. Constantly. I have two daughters, and I have
raised them to expect nothing less than to be treated like a princess by a man. I tell
them to avoid cheap, frugal men like the plague! If a man really loves a woman and
appreciates her companionship, he will have no problem 'wining and dining' that
woman. There is a reason that Steve Harvey is on television and you're not!"
Alan Roger Currie's response: I have never written a book entitled "How to
Maintain a Happy, Successful Marriage," so therefore I do not need to have been
married to have credibility to write the books that I have written and published.
Similarly, I have never written a book entitled "How to Raise a Healthy Teenage and
Young Adult Daughter who is Sexually Responsible," so once again, I do not have to
be the biological father to a daughter in order to have credibility for the books that I
have written and published. Notorious killer Charles Manson has daughters. Would
you take relationship advice from him?

My question to you is, how have you taught your daughters to treat men? Like
'tricks?' Like 'chumps?' (a trick is a man who spends money on women and 'wines
and dines' women with the specific hope and expectation that those women will
agree to engage in sexual relations with him; a chump is a man who is willing to
invest a significant percentage of his free time socializing with women and even
'wining and dining' women, even though none of the women who he is socializing
with have given him any indication that they are interested in engaging in any type of
physical intimacy or sexual relations with him).

I am no woman's 'chump' or 'trick,' and I never will be, and I will always teach men to
watch out for women who are looking to use them for nothing more than financial
favors and entertaining platonic social companionship before later on becoming
bored with them, dumping them, and having nothing else to do with them.

One more question: If your ex-husband was so great to you ... why is he your ex-
husband? Hmmm.

Email feedback in response to the article, Examining the women who want men's
attention, but at the same time - they don't

From Carmen W.:

"I started reading many of your articles beginning with summer 2014. Some of your
subject matter I find incredibly interesting, while other subject matter has me ready to
submit prayers for you Mr. Currie! lol.

So let me get this straight: are you suggesting in your article on men catcalling
women that any woman who is adorned in a cute, sexy outfit, but wants no sexual
attention from men, is an 'attention whore' or 'c*ck-teaser?' Is that what you
expressed in that article Mr. Currie?

My belief is, if a woman walking around her neighborhood in her bra and thong
makes her feel good about herself, who says that she deserves to be constantly
harassed by men who she is not interested in having sex with?

You men feel like you are entitled to a woman's body, and you are not! Women
maintain ownership of their bodies, not men! We are not men's property!! Needless
to say, I did not like that particular article of yours Mr. Currie. All of these horny men
following women around on the streets of New York City and other major cities need
to learn how to control their hormones!"
Alan Roger Currie's response: So ... let me get this straight: Are you suggesting
that all men who identify a woman who they are physically and sexually attracted to
should just avoid approaching these women, and never, ever attempt to initiate a
conversation with these women of interest? Is that what you just expressed in your
rebuttal message to me?

My belief is, if a man identifies a woman who he finds himself attracted to, he should
make at least one attempt to approach her and initiate a conversation with her ...
then invite that woman to share his company one-on-one ... and if she rejects him,
he should then leave that woman alone abruptly and never make an attempt to
converse with her again.

If that man continues to attempt to carry on a conversation with that woman AFTER
she has already made it clear that she is not interested in sharing the man's
company in any sort of romantic and/or sexual manner, then that man would be
guilty of 'harassment' (or more specifically, 'street harassment') and at that point, the
woman has a valid right to report his behavior to the authorities.

Carmen, the problem with many women is that they want to have it both ways. Many
women do not want to feel obligated to reciprocate a man's romantic and/or sexual
desires, interests, and intentions ... but at the same time ... many of these same
women do not want to take five-to-ten seconds to let these men know that they are
definitely not interested in sharing these men's company in any sort of romantic or
sexual manner. A woman cannot attempt to 'play the middle from both ends.' Either
reciprocate, or reject. Simple.

Because in the same manner that you are suggesting that men should never
'assume' that a woman is interested in sharing their company in a sexual manner, I
am the type of guy that will never, ever 'assume' that a woman is not interested in
sharing my company in a sexual manner. A woman has to specifically convey her
lack of interest to me in order for me to believe that she is not interested in sharing
my company. End of story.

Email feedback in response to the article, Men's desire for sex: the 'front' door,
the 'side' door, and the 'back' door

From Olivia B.:

"Your use of your unique term, 'fun-clubbing,' is so funny to me! I think a lot of men
and women engage in fun-clubbing behavior regularly. (and you notice I said men
and women; I get the impression that you think only men fun-club with women! But I
know many of my girlfriends who have fun-clubbed with men too!)

Even though I am a woman, I agree that it is far more intimidating for a single man to
approach a woman and ask her straightforwardly for sex than it is for a single woman
to do the same thing with a man.

Right or wrong, women tend to always assume that men always are going to say
'yes' if we invite them to have sex with us. The only women that men can make that
assumption with are prostitutes, and even then, the men have to offer them money.
I have to disagree with your suggestion that the onus should be on the woman to find
out what the true desires are of a male (platonic) friend. I think the onus should on
the male friend. He needs to quit fun-clubbing and state his (sexual) interests
directly! Isn't that what it means to be mode one? :)"

Alan Roger Currie's response: For my readers who are not familiar with my term,
'FunClubbing,' please click here (in a nutshell, when a man is 'FunClubbing' with a
woman, that means he is 'pretending' to be content with indefinitely maintaining a
purely platonic friendship with a woman even though deep-down, he knows that he
really wants to engage in a series of interactions with that woman that are more
romantic and/or sexual in nature).

Actually Olivia, I pretty much agree with everything you said. I do know women who
have been guilty of 'FunClubbing' with men in the same manner that a lot of men
have been guilty of FunClubbin' with women. So you are right: FunClubbin' is not
exclusively representative of male behavior.

Secondly, I also agree that it is far less intimidating for a woman to be upfront and
straightforwardly honest with a man about her desire to engage in sexual relations
with him than it is for the average man to exhibit the same type of candid and
provocative interpersonal communication style with women. Most men are
'brainwashed' to believe that it is somehow 'disrespectful' and/or 'socially
inappropriate' for a man to let a woman know in his very first conversation with her
that all he is interested in is exchanging orgasms with that woman.

This is the very reason why my I wrote and published my eBooks, paperbacks,
and audiobooks, and made them available to single heterosexual men all over the
world. So they can reverse or nullify that invalid 'brainwashing.' There is definitely an
interpersonal communication 'double standard' that very much exists in society as it
relates to a man communicating his sexual desires, interests, and intentions to
women in a bold, forthright manner.

Finally, I also agree that men should always be upfront and straightforwardly honest
with their so-called 'female friends' about the fact that they really want to date them,
or engage in one or more episodes of short-term and/or non-monogamous 'casual'
sex with them instead of continuing to 'FunClub' with women. But, for those women
who are always 'bragging' on the number of male platonic friends they have, they
need to get real. No less than half of those 'male friends' really want to get in those
women's pants, even when they are doing a good job of pretending to be content
with a purely platonic friendship.

Email feedback in response to the article, Columnist's informal survey finds some
women have sex rated as a low priority

From Patricia K.:

"Alan, you and I are friends on Facebook, and although we have never interacted
with each other in-person, I follow a lot of your Facebook posts andExaminer.com
articles.
I too have been an off-and-on member of the online
matchmaking dating site, BlackPeopleMeet.com (BPM), and honestly Alan, I would
have to agree with the two BPM users you mentioned in your article:
'PrettyLegs1969' and '1GreatCatch4You.'

I do not believe sex is ever the same priority in long-term relationships or marriage
for women like it is for men, but especially when a woman is 35 years old or older.
As one of the BPM users mentioned, if you are a woman who considers herself
attractive and in good shape (I would pridefully place myself in that category), then
you tend to feel like you can get sex from a man anytime, anywhere. A man to
provide you with good sex is not that hard to find.

What is more challenging for most women is finding a man who wants to spend a
significant amount of time with you without sex being a constant request. At this point
in my life, that is what I am most interested in. I would not go as far as to say that I
am not interested in sex with my male companion entirely, but I do not want sex to
be the top priority in the relationship.

I know that may be hard for the typical man to understand, but many women are
looking more so for emotional fulfillment rather than sexual fulfillment."

Alan Roger Currie's response: Patricia, I have no problem with a woman who
desires a male companion and/or husband who has sex as a 'low priority.' Not at all.
If that is what you want, that is what you want.

My problem with many of the women on the BPM site is that they did not list this
desire conspicuously on their online profiles.

If women are looking for male romantic companions who place a low emphasis on
the frequency of sexual relations, then they should prominently state that on their
online profiles on sites such as Match.com or BPM. Otherwise, a woman is guilty of
misleading men, engaging in 'head games,' and setting that man up for an infamous
'bait-and-switch' unethical relationship technique.

I am sure there are some (older) men out here in society whose libidos have
diminished and would have no problem being in a marriage or long-term relationship
where sexual relations only took place infrequently.

Email feedback in response to the article, BDSM 101: 'Fifty Shades' of varying
degrees of Erotic Domination and Submission

From Angela H.:

"I am an erotica novelist and informal Dominatrix. I find it very amusing that much of
the media, when it highlights stories of BDSM, usually slants the role of the
Dominant partner toward the man (i.e., the man in the relationship being the 'Top' or
'Dom,' and the woman in the relationship being the 'Bottom' or 'Sub'). Sorry fellas,
but that overly exaggerated scenario has not been my reality.
Alan my dear Sir, would you believe I have men from various countries literally
begging me to erotically dominate them? Either face-to-face, over the Internet
(Skype), or over the telephone. I mean, I get monetary offers from (submissive) men
on a weekly basis. Men from Canada, many countries in Europe and The United
Kingdom, the Middle East, Australia, and a number of other countries.

I believe men should quit pretending that they do not want an erotically dominant
Goddess in their lives. I am like a very domineering, but highly sexualized 'second
mother' or 'big sister' who tells these men what to do, and they love it. I train them to
worship my femininity and my sensuality.

The days of women bowing down to men is over. Women have men begging them to
dominate them. Begging. Let me ask you my kind Sir, do you have women begging
you to dominate them? LOL. 'Fifty Shades of Grey' would have been far more
interesting to me if Anastasia was the one dominating Christian Grey. The story
would have been much more realistic in my opinion.

I enjoyed the read my good Sir. Cheers!"

Alan Roger Currie's response: Trust me Angela, as an occasional Professional

Dominant Sir (the male equivalent to a woman being a Professional
Dominatrix)myself, I have had more than my fair share of enthusiastic female clients
who have been left very satisfied by my services. I do not know if I would categorize
those female clients as "begging" for my services, but the vast majority of them
initiated contact with me with a boat load of enthusiasm and desire over the last five
plus years.

The reality is this: Many men in today's society are accommodating, fawning,
submissive-oriented Beta males (as opposed to more confident and erotically
dominant Alpha males). Many men have been brought up by single mothers, and
brainwashed to worship the beauty and sex appeal of women. Many of those same
men feel emasculated to one degree or another. I even read one article that
suggested that many men in today's society actually aspire to be a
woman'scuckold. That lets you know the type of dating climate we are living in these
days.

Once again, this is why I take pride in what I do as a Professional Dating Coach. My
number one mission is to help men who currently see themselves as Beta males
make the transition into becoming more highly self-assured, egotistically indifferent,
and erotically dominant Alpha males. Otherwise, those men will end up spending
their entire life savings requesting to be dominated by women like yourself. Poor
guys.

Email feedback in response to the article, 5 behavior traits that cause men to be
perceived as boring in the eyes of women

From Margaret R.:

"Never have you been more wrong with one of your male advice articles Mr. Currie!
Totally wrong!
In one of your articles, you suggested that women find men to be boring who flatter
them, spend money on them, and seek to please women and accommodate them.
That is so, so wrong! Now granted, I will agree with two of your top five
characteristics, which are Mr. Gossipy and Mr. No Good in Bed. If I meet a man who
gossips more than I do, or he is totally incapable of satisfying me in bed, then I would
agree with you. I would very quickly lose interest in that type of man.

As far as the other three characteristics you named, I cannot agree with them at all. I
love a man who flatters me and makes me feel good about myself. Every woman
wants reassurance that we are attractive and sexy. Also, I love a man who is
financially generous. Who wants to go out with a cheap, stingy man? And what
woman in her right mind does not to be with a man who is looking to please her and
make her happy? That does not make any sense to me.

Did I miss something? Please explain to me why you think those three
characteristics are somehow a 'turn-off' rather than a 'turn-on,' because after reading
your article at least two times, it did not make any sense to me! Just about all of the
men who I have gone out with in the last year or two have been polite gentlemen
who were flattering, respectful, and financially generous! And I will continue to go out
with only these types of men!"

Alan Roger Currie's response: So Margaret, I take it that you are not married, not
engaged, and it sounds like you currently do not have a long-term boyfriend. Why is
that? Out of all of these 'respectful, flattering, polite, and financially generous men ...
you cannot identify one to settle down with?

Just the fact that you are out here still "searching" lets me know that most of these
men ended up 'boring' you. Of course, you would never own up to that fact, but
realistically, if one or more of these men really tickled your fancy, you would be
settling into a long-term relationship with one of them. Right? Of course I am right.

There is nothing wrong with a man expressing a flattering compliment to a woman

here and there, but when a man does this repeatedly and excessively in a short
period of time, that is representative of "fawning" over a woman. When a man fawns
over a woman, he automatically loses respect in a woman's eyes as a potential
boyfriend or husband. Such behavior makes a man look as though he is lonely,
needy, and sexually desperate.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong with a man exhibiting behavior that is 'pleasing'
and/or 'accommodating' to women to a certain degree, but when a man is willing to
totally sacrifice his own happiness for the sake of making a woman happy, that is a
huge mistake in the long run. As soon as things go sour in that marriage or
relationship, that man is going to become very bitter and regretful, and all hell is
going to break loose.

Finally, when a man goes out of his way to attract women's attention, interest, and
companionship by 'wining and dining' her, showering her with material gifts, and
spending large sums of money on her, that man is simply asking to be used and
manipulated by materialistic 'gold digger' types, and he will surely be dumped later
on by those women once that man runs into any type of financial problems and/or
once another man who is offering to spend even more money on those women
comes along.

-End-

As always, if you want to provide me with feedback on one or more of my most

recent articles, you can write me via Email or Facebook.

Until next time . . .

Being Catty: When women
hate on and judge other
women, and what it means
for men
In many discussions involving today's dating scene and overall social scene, a lot
seems to be made of the seeming 'chasm' between many single heterosexual men
and single women. The reality is, just as there are differences in men's behavior and
women's behavior as it relates to romantic, sexual, and social interactions with one
another, there are also many philosophical differences between men who have
different backgrounds and upbringing, and arguably even more so, there are a
number of differences between women as it relates to what is 'appropriate' vs.
'inappropriate' behavior for a woman to exhibit publicly and privately.

When women are competitive with one another, and frequently pass judgment on
each other as well as engage in a high degree of gossip about other women, this is
commonly referred to as women being "catty." There are some issues that will
temporarily cause women to become unified in their thinking (e.g., protecting
themselves against rape and date rape, lobbying for equal respect and salary
opportunities in the workplace, among other issues that tend to generate universal
agreement and consensus among women), but the reality is, there are number of
different factions among the female gender that often results in major clashes
between its members.

Today, this column will examine at least five major 'philosophical catfights' that tend
to frequently take place among women, and how each difference of opinion can
often times leave men feeling confused and/or frustrated about what behavior of their
own is going to be perceived as 'appealing' or 'unappealing' to women:

Philosophical Catfight #5 - Women who believe in making the 'first move' with
men vs. Women who believe that men should always pursue women

General Comment: In the 21st Century, it is not uncommon for a woman to

approach a man of interest, initiate a conversation with him, and eventually let that
man know that she finds him attractive and sexually appealing. Many women in
society have been known to offer their business card to a man, and invite him to give
her a telephone call in the near future. Many women who consider themselves 'old-
fashioned' frown on such behavior, and generally maintain the stance that a woman
should always allow a man to make the first move and allow the man to behave as
'the aggressor.' Those women who are in the habit of asking men out on dates are
usually harshly criticized by those women who do not believe in women exhibiting
such assertive behavior.
Can this difference of opinion among women leave men confused and/or
frustrated? Possibly, but not necessarily. The vast majority of men have been
socially conditioned (i.e., brainwashed) to believe that a man should typically initiate
conversations with women, so it is rare when a man consistently just 'sits back' and
waits for women to approach him first (with the possible exception of certain
professional male athletes and Entertainment Industry male celebrities). That said
though, some men who consider themselves "pickup artists" (PUAs) or at
least, wannabe PUAs, do tend to get frustrated when women have an adverse
reaction to them initiating what is known as a 'cold approach' (a 'cold approach' is
representative of anytime a man approaches a woman who is a brand new female
acquaintance, and initiates a flirtatious type conversation with her in a social setting
or public environment where a woman would least expect to be flirted with, and
might be likely to respond to a man's bold approach with a harsh, abrupt rejection).

Philosophical Catfight #4 - Women who believe in conservative clothing vs.

Women who are in the habit of wearing more revealing, sexually provocative
clothing

General Comment: Many men might be surprised how many women pass
judgement on other women's choice of clothing. Just recently, popular megastar
singer Beyonc received a lot of criticism on social media sites
like Facebook and Twitter regarding her choice of clothing while attending the Met
Gala in New York City. Many women who consider themselves as being 'old-
fashioned' or 'traditional' tend to believe that clothing outfits that closely resemble a
variation of sexy lingerie should only be adorned in private. Other, more free-spirited
and socially rebellious type women believe that there is nothing 'shameful' or
'inappropriate' about highlighting a high percentage of skin as well as a woman's
body in general. Many of these women believe, "If God blessed with you certain
physical assets ... flaunt them!"

Can this difference of opinion among women leave men confused and/or
frustrated? Not really, but occasionally ... yes. The problem with sexually
provocative clothing - in the eyes and minds of many men - is that a good number of
men view tight, short, and/or sexually provocative clothing as an open invitation to
not only be sexually flirtatious with a woman, but taking it a step or two further, many
men begin to erroneously feel like they have the right to touch and grope women
without their permission. Years ago, some women started the 'SlutWalk movement'
after a Canadian (male) police officer suggested that women's provocative clothing
was the cause of many incidents of date-rape and rape.

Philosophical Catfight #3 - Women who are dominant 'Alpha female' types vs.
Women who are more highly feminine, submissive 'Girly Girls'

General Comment: There is a belief among many women that if you want to
achieve a high degree of career success and financial success in the 'concrete
jungle' known as Corporate America, that you must emulate the leadership skills of
men and develop masculine type backbone when dealing with male colleagues and
subordinates. A number of women who are known as 'Alpha females' (i.e., women
who have a very competitive and dominant nature about them) tend to look down on
women who they perceive as more 'Girly Girl' types who are known for being docile
and submissive with the men in their lives. The reality is, men gravitate toward
women's feminine energy in the same manner that many heterosexual women
gravitate toward men because of their masculine energy. This is known as the 'Yin-
Yang' effect. Women who are Alpha females do not want to hear anything related to
the idea of a woman being acquiescent and submissive to a male companion.

Can this difference of opinion among women leave men confused and/or
frustrated? Very much so. A man entering into a romantic relationship with a
woman with 'Alpha' tendencies and attributes is a totally different experience than a
man entering into a romantic relationship with a woman who is more 'Beta' and
submissive in nature. Generally speaking, it is extremely challenging (if not damn
near impossible) for an Alpha male and an Alpha female to co-exist in a
harmonious manner indefinitely. When a man or woman is 'Alpha,' this means that
they have a natural desire to want to lead and dictate just about any relationship they
are involved in ... personally or professionally. Many women are 'sneaky,' meaning
that a number of women will initially give a potential male romantic companion the
misleading impression that they are more 'Beta' than 'Alpha,' but then, once wedding
rings have been exchanged, and she has 'Mrs.' in front of her first name, then her
more Alpha side will slowly, but surely reveal itself. This is known as a 'marital bait-
and-switch' executed by a woman. Let the heated arguments begin.

Philosophical Catfight #2 - Women who desire to only engage in sex within the
context of marriage or a long-term monogamous relationship vs. Women who
openly engage in short-term and/or non-monogamous 'casual' sex

General Comment: If you read the previous article in this column about some of
the more underrated contributing factors to the motivations behind theFeminist
Movement, then you are probably already aware that one of the aspects that drove
feminism was a 'philosophical catfight' between what could be labeled the 'Frustrated
Traditional Wives' and the 'Frustrated Mistresses / On-the-side Women.' Actually, if
you do your research on the early use of the terms 'whore' and 'slut,' you will find that
it was women who initially used those two terms to describe the behavior of other
women just as much if not more than it was men who expressed those same two
terms.

For centuries, there have always been two factions of women when it comes to the
issue of how many male sex partners a woman should have: The 'prudes'(i.e., those
women who believe sex should only be enjoyed with a male companion who is that
woman's husband, fianc, or at bare minimum, long-term monogamous
'boyfriend') and the 'free-spirits' (i.e., those women who believe that they should feel
free to have sex with as many male [and female] companions that they choose to).
Among prudish types, the term 'free spirits' would be representative of being "nice"
and "polite." Most prudish types view non-prudes as whores (or 'hos' for short) and
trashy sluts. On the flip side, many from the erotically uninhibited and free-spirited
camp refer to those from the prudish way of thinking as 'frigid' and/or 'uptight.'

Can this difference of opinion among women leave men confused and/or
frustrated? Most definitely. When a man approaches a woman, initiates a
conversation with a woman, and eventually expresses a desire to engage in one or
more episodes of short-term and/or non-monogamous 'casual' sex, whether a
woman is a 'prude' or a 'free-spirit' (or, somewhere 'in-between' ... what
the audiobook Oooooh ... Say it Again: Mastering the Fine Art of Verbal Seduction
and Aural Sex refers to as 'Wholesome Pretenders,' which are women who will
publicly behave more like the 'prude' type, but privately they will behave more like
the erotically uninhibited 'free-spirit' type) will have a major impact on how that
woman responds to the man's sexual advances. The vast majority of the women
from the 'prudish' mindset do not believe that a man should ever make mention of
engaging in oral sex and/or intercourse before the two have officially entered into a
long-term monogamous relationship of some sort. Conversely, women who are
open-minded, free-spirited, and erotically uninhibited have no problem or issue
with a man being forthright with his sexual desires, interests, and intentions in
his very first conversation with a woman.

Philosophical Catfight #1 - Women who believe that men should always

directly, or indirectly, 'pay' for sex vs. Women who believe that sex should
never be representative of a 'business transaction'

General Comment: With the possible exception of Philosophical Catfight #2, this
philosophical catfight probably produces more debates, discussions, and
disagreements among women than any of the other philosophical differences
regarding women's behavior in society and their behavior toward men. Plain and
simple, there are some women in society that do not believe that a man should ever
be able to enjoy a woman's sexual companionship unless he is offering to
compensate that woman financially in some sort of way. When it comes to short-term
or non-monogamous sex, these types are usually street prostitutes, professional Call
Girls, or upscale Erotic Escorts. When it comes to more long-term, indefinite type
sexual relationships, these types are usually referred to as 'Gold Diggers,' 'Sugar
Babies,' or 'Status Seeking Wives.' These women believe that their sexual
companionship is far more valuable to a man than a man's sexual companionship is
to a woman.

In contrast, many women in today's society consider it very shallow, superficial, and
extremely manipulative to expect a man to 'pay' for sexual enjoyment and
satisfaction that both the man and the woman will experience together. Many of the
'new breed feminists' actually believe that the act of sex is just as pleasurable and
satisfying, if not more so for women than it is for men (and to a large degree, they
are right; a woman's clitoris has 7,500 - 8,000 nerve endings while the head of a
man's penis has only approximately 3,500 nerve endings). The great irony is, when
women allow men to have sex with them for 'free,' they are often referred to as
'whores' by other women, but yet, the dictionary definition of a 'whore' is a woman
who exchanges her sexual companionship for money, material possessions, and/or
offers of employment.

Can this difference of opinion among women leave men confused and/or
frustrated? No question. For sure.

When a man seeks to interact romantically or sexually with a woman who is 'Alpha,'
'prudish,' and believes that all men should have to 'pay' for sex, he is asking for a
boat load of problems in the near and distant future. If you are a man reading this
right now, and you believe you are currently interacting with a woman of this nature,
proceed at your own risk (although sometimes, men who are 'Beta males' have no
choice but to put up with these types).

On the flip side, if your current girlfriend or casual sex lover is a woman who is more
of a 'Girly Girl' who is open-minded, free-spirited, and erotically uninhibited ... and to
add frosting on the cake - does not believe you should ever spend money on her in
exchange for the opportunity to enjoy a pleasurable orgasm with her - then consider
yourself lucky. The only time a man should ever feel 'obligated' to spend money on a
woman is in a situation where he wants to marry a woman, and he wants that
woman to remain home to raise and nurture their children as opposed to her
pursuing an independent career of her own. The position of 'stay-at-home mother'
should always come with some sort of 'salary' and/or financial perks, because being
a stay-at-home mother and wife is not easy.

If you are a woman reading this article, and you are one of those rare women who
never criticizes other women's behavior, never passes judgment on other women's
behavior, and never gossips about other women behind their back, then you should
be applauded. This means you are not petty, and you believe that all women have
the right to choose whatever behavior is most conducive to their needs and
preferences.

For all of the other women who validly find themselves being described in one or
more of the five aforementioned 'philosophical catfights' above ... all I have to say is
one word:

Meow.
When men and women fail
to be selective, their
reputation is sure to suffer
In so many ways, men and women are similar ... but yet, different.

Case in point: The manner in which each single men and single women earn a
certain measure of respect from fellow members of their own gender, as well as a
certain percentage of the opposite sex. How they gain that respect centers on one
major principle: the idea of being 'selective' on who you allow to share your company
on a regular or semi-regular basis, and who you do not.

Most restaurants and nightclubs are considered "elite" or "top tier" if they maintain
very strict criteria over what patrons are allowed in ... and which potential patrons are
'weeded out.' Same can be said for certain colleges and universities as it relates to
their highly selective admission practices (e.g., most Ivy League institutions).

One of the major factors that separates the behavior and reputation of celebrities
versus non-celebrities is not solely their level of talent or expertise, or their degree of
visibility and notoriety, but it is also how ultra-selective most celebrities are toward
who they allow to share their company socially ... and who is relegated to simply
being an 'enthusiastic fan' who never is allowed access into that celebrity's private
life and inner social circle.

When discussing the notion of men and women being 'selective' regarding how
many members of the opposite sex are allowed to share their company, here is the
major fundamental difference - generally speaking - between men and women:

A) Women are generally expected to be very selective and discriminating as

far as how many men they allow to share their company in a physically
intimate and sexual manner. If a woman's behavior adheres to this expectation,
these women are often referred to as a 'respectable lady with class' and/or a 'good
girl.' If a woman chooses to exhibit behavior that defiantly goes against this societal
influenced expectation, and she proceeds to allow an above-average number of men
to share her company in an intimate and sexual manner, then she is usually and
inevitably going to be labeled a 'slut,' a 'loose woman,' or a 'tramp.' If she decides to
exchange her sexual companionship for financial compensation and monetary favors
from men, then she will be surely labeled a 'whore.'

Men experience similar feedback ... but yet, in a very different way.

B) Men earn praise and respect from other men for seducing and having sex
with as many women as possible; conversely, men typically lose respect in the
eyes of many men if they develop a reputation for choosing to socially interact
with a high number of women in a purely platonic manner. If a man's behavior
adheres to the expectation of getting laid with just about every woman they interact
with, then these men are often referred to as 'players,' 'pimps,' 'ladies' men,' and
'studs.' If a man voluntarily chooses to share the company of dozens and dozens of
women in a purely platonic manner, that man is usually and inevitably going to be
labeled a 'chump,' a 'loser,' and/or a 'male girlfriend.'

Expectations "A" and "B" is what feeds into the long-standing belief that "women
offer men sex in order to secure their non-sexual attention and companionship, while
men offer women flattering and entertaining attention and social companionship in
order to secure their sexual companionship" (okay, the short version of that is,
"women offer men sex for attention, while men offer women attention for sex").

Reality check #1: No woman 'needs' to be in a long-term relationship in order to

get sex from a man.

Comment: Men ... how many women are you acquainted with that NEED to have the
title of "wife," "fiance," or "long-term girlfriend" in order to motivate a man to have
sex with them? We all know the answer: zero. Just about any woman walking this
earth who is reasonably attractive and has an average to above average degree of
sex appeal can invite a single heterosexual man to engage in a one-night stand with
her, a weekend fling with her, or some other variation of short-term and/or non-
monogamous 'casual' sex, and the vast majority of men are going to take her up on
that invitation (unless she has a reputation for contracting sexually transmitted
diseases or she is known for exhibiting the behavior of a 'psychotic stalker' type).

The only women who usually restrict their sexual activities to men who they are
involved in an exclusively committed relationship with are those women who are very
self-conscious and paranoid about being criticized, insulted, and/or labeled by
society for being a 'slut' or 'whore.' The reality is, even many of those 'reputation-
conscious' women will still find a way to discreetly engage in sexual activities with
men of choice outside the context of a husband-wife relationship or a boyfriend-
girlfriend relationship (unless they are just really, really deeply religious and fanatical
about abstaining from non-marital sex).

Verdict: Women rarely, if ever, enter into a long-term monogamous relationship with
a man - or exchange marriage vows with a man - in order to motivate that man to
please them and satisfy them in bed sexually. The vast majority of women can
accomplish that objective without being involved in a long-term, emotionally
profound, monogamous relationship with a man.

Reality check #2: No man 'needs' to be in a long-term relationship in order to

gain access to a woman's non-sexual attention and companionship.

Comment: Women ... how many men are you acquainted with that NEED to have the
title of "husband," "fianc," or "long-term boyfriend" in order to motivate a woman to
join them for breakfast, lunch, or dinner to allow the woman to vent about her
problems, disappointments, and frustrations, or to gossip about the relationship
challenges of her friends, co-workers, and acquaintances? We all know the
answer: damn-near-close-to-zero. If a man is financially generous (e.g., he has no
problem treating a woman to a free meal, free movie, free concert, etc.), he is willing
to provide a woman with an 'empathetic listening ear' (e.g., listen to her whine and
complain about everything that is 'wrong' in her life), and he possesses a reasonably
flattering, entertaining, and humorous personality (e.g., he has a knack for making a
woman smile and/or laugh frequently), then very few women are going to turn down
this man's invitation to share his company in a non-threatening, non-physical, non-
sexual, purely platonic manner (unless that man is known for exhibiting the behavior
of a 'psychotic stalker' type).

The only men who usually have a problem motivating women to share their company
regularly, semi-regularly, or even occasionally in a purely platonic manner are men
who are a combination of "cheap" (i.e., not willing to spend any money on women)
and/or men who are not willing to flatter women when they very badly need an 'ego
boost' and not willing to entertain them or listen to them vent when they are bored,
lonely, or depressed.

Verdict: Men rarely, if ever, enter into a long-term monogamous relationship with a
woman - or exchange marriage vows with a woman - in order to motivate that
woman to provide them with entertaining conversation or dependable non-physical,
non-sexual social companionship. The vast majority of men can accomplish that
objective without being involved in a long-term, emotionally profound, monogamous
relationship with a woman.

Many women have argued, "Any man who only wants to share the company of a
woman for the sole and specific purpose of sexual pleasure and satisfaction is
attempting to 'use' that woman, and should at least have the decency to offer her
some sort of 'reward' (e.g., money, material gifts, etc.) . . ." This is why you have
many women who are professional Call Girls, upscale Erotic Escorts, or simply street
prostitutes. Many men allow themselves to buy into this invalid belief, and turn to
behavior known as 'tricking' (a 'Trick' is a man - or woman - who will always offer to
compensate their spouses, romantic companions, or chosen sex partners with
monetary favors, material gifts, employment offers, etc.; a Trick is rarely if ever able
to motivate someone to have sex with them for free).

Many men have argued, "Any woman who only wants to share the company of a
man for the sole and specific purpose of being flattered, entertained, or treated to a
free movie or free meal is attempting to 'use' that man, and should at least be
grateful enough to allow that man to make out with her at the end of the 'dates' ...."
This is why you have many men who disingenuously 'pretend' to be interested in a
lunch date or dinner date, when they really just want to make out and have sex.

Reality check #3: Men and women 'use' members of the opposite sex as well as
members of their own gender ALL THE TIME. 'Using' people for a specific,
time-limited, self-serving purpose is not a 'crime,' nor is it really 'unethical'
when you are upfront and straightforwardly honest about your desires,
interest, and intentions. 'Using' people is only 'wrong' when you are willing to
indefinitely pretend that you are not attempting to 'use' that person for a
specific, self-serving purpose.
Comment: When you visit your local grocery store, are you attempting to develop
and nurture a long-term friendship with your favorite cashier? No. Whether you want
to admit it or not, you just want that cashier to ring up the prices of your chosen
groceries, engage in a couple of minutes of entertaining 'small talk,' then go about
your day. Put more bluntly, you are 'using' that cashier to help your visits to the
grocery story flow very smoothly. Same with your favorite waiter or waitress at your
local restaurants. It is not your desire to hang out at family gatherings with that waiter
or waitress' relatives and children. You just want them to help you choose the right
meal for the right price on that particular restaurant's menu. That is it.

Again, the only time you should feel 'bad' for 'using' someone is when you are giving
that person that misleading impression that you are NOT 'using' them for a specific
purpose, such as free meals, free concerts, and free movies, or for short-term, non-
monogamous sexual pleasure and satisfaction.

Conclusion / Recap:

Both men and women are very frequently praised, admired, and respected when
they have a reputation for being 'selective' and 'discriminating' as far as what
members of the opposite sex they allow to share their company, and how many
members of the opposite gender they prevent from sharing their company on a
regular or semi-regular basis.

The primary difference between men and women has to do with in what manner are
you being selective toward members of the opposite sex. Women, generally
speaking, are expected by other women (and even many men) to be extremely
selective regarding the quality and quantity of men they allow to share their company
in a physical and sexual manner. If you are a woman who brazenly goes against this
popular expectation, expect to be labeled a 'slut' or worse. Men, generally speaking,
are expected by other men (and even a few women) to be extremely selective
regarding the quality and quantity of women that they allow to share their company in
a non-physical, non-sexual, purely platonic manner. If you are a man who chooses to
defy this expectation, expect to be ridiculed for being a 'chump,' a 'loser,' and/or a
perpetual 'male girlfriend' type.

P.S. In the same way many women charge money for access to their sexual
companionship, there are a number of men who actually charge women money for
access to their platonic companionship. One website that promotes such behavior is
called Rent-a-Friend.com

Remember: No woman on earth 'needs' to be in a relationship to exchange

orgasms ... and similarly, no man on earth 'needs' to be in a relationship in order to
engage in entertaining conversation. Be realistic about what members of the
opposite sex REALLY want from you in the short-run and the long-run.

If you are a woman, and you really want to share the company of multiple men in a
sexual manner ... own your sexuality and do it. Who cares about the criticisms,
insults, and subjective labels expressed by others. If you are a man, and you really
want to share the company of multiple women in a purely platonic manner ... then do
that if - and only if- that type of interaction is what genuinely makes you happy.
Critics will always criticize, 'Haters' will always hate on you, and Gossipers will
always gossip about you. What else is new? This is your life. Own your personality
and behavior and assign the proper degree of value to both your sexual attention
and companionship as well as your non-sexual attention and companionship.