Have you ever found yourself being perceived as "controversial" even when you were not specifically or intentionally trying to be controversial? That seems to be what has happened to me recently, particularly in the last week-and-a-half to two weeks or so, as a direct result of my last three articles and my most recent talk radio show discussion topic.
I have been a freelance columnist (or more appropriately, an "Examiner") for The Examiner.com since mid-to-late August 2009. I would say, for just about every article I write, I usually receive a handful of Email messages and another handful of Facebook inbox messages, in addition to the comments that are left on the bottom of this page, or comments that have been posted on my Facebook page for those bold enough to want their responses made public.
Well, starting with Wednesday, April 4, 2012, which was the day I wrote this article up until this morning, I have received more Email messages and private Facebook messages than arguably in any two week period since I first started writing this column. 90-95% of the time, most of my harshest disagreements comes from my female readers. The only messages and responses I usually receive from male readers is usually strong agreements or questions for further clarification regarding an opinion I expressed or philosophy I espoused.
You can read my previous seven editions of Feedback from My Readers HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. Normally, I wait until I have written seven or eight new articles, but this time, I have only written six articles since my last installment in this series.
***********************************************************************
[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 last Thursday evening's topic of my talk radio podcast program, Upfront & Straightforward with Alan Roger Currie where I discussed the benefits and detriments of single men maintaining platonic friendships with single women
From Arlesha W.:
"I listened to your talk radio show on Thursday, and this was my third time listening to your show. Your discussion was most interesting. I have to ask: Why is sex always the motivation behind men's interest in interacting with us (women)? Are you men ever interested in sharing our company just because we can provide you with good conversation, and maybe some advice about your life, your career, and your goals and ambitions? I love maintaining good platonic friendships with men, but at some point, they always seem to make an attempt to get in my pants. It is so disheartening. There is more to life than sex Mr. Alan!!"
Alan's response: Arlesha, with all due respect ... and I am not trying to be funny here ... but I have this question: Can you imagine yourself going up to a lion, and asking, "Why do you have to try to kill and eat a zebra or other animal? Why can't you just try to be good friends with the other animals in the jungle? Why does everything have to revolve around your hunger and your stomach?!?" How do you think that lion would look at you, before attempting to have you for lunch?
What I am getting at is, for the vast majority of men ... and most women as well ... the desire for sex is not an "intellectual decision." I say that in my latest book, Oooooh . . . Say it Again: Mastering the Fine Art of Verbal Seduction and Aural Sex. Watching television? That is an intellectual decision and a habit you have formed over the years. Going shopping? Same thing. Playing a game of Scrabble? Same thing. The strong desire to have sex? Uhm, ... no.
In other words, you were not born with a natural desire and yearning to watch television, go shopping and play Scrabble. A man and a woman are born with a natural desire and yearning for food, water, physical activity, and as they mature, sex. That desire is more hormonal and instinctual than it is intellectual. This is where phrases such as, "I got caught up in the heat of the moment" come from. Sometimes, your intelligence is your guiding force initially ... but the more you spend time with that person, your hormones and instincts take over, and soon your crotch area starts sending signals to your brain that say, "Hey dude ... make a move!"
My opinion? Why would any woman want a man to 'pretend' that he is not interested in sex, when in actuality, that man is? If I were a woman, I would invite a man to talk about sex, and only sex. Then, if I knew that was going to interfere with my desire and ability to maintain a friendship with him, that would be sign to weed him out of my circle of male friends. On the other hand, when you come at men with harsh criticisms such as, "Is that all you all think about? Sex?!?" then you are almost ASKING a man to become a liar and a manipulative game player.
Women need to stop attempting to lay "guilt trips" on men regarding their sexual desires and urges. The desire for sex is natural. Would you want someone constantly telling you, "You think about wanting to make money too much and wanting to eat and drink too much!! Control yourself woman!!! Quit thinking about earning money and filling up your stomach!!" Would you be cool with that? You and I both know the answer to that one . . .
Email feedback in response to my article, Columnist believes if obligatory monogamy were abolished, honesty would flourish
From Penélope G.:
"If nothing else, your article was entertaining. I even asked some of my girlfriends how would their behavior change toward men if marriage was banned and made illegal. The prospect of that really makes you think. I do not want to live in Montana or Wyoming!! :) So Mr. Currie, do you think all men deep down hate the fact that they can't have their cake and eat it too? Do you think ideally all men want two or three sex partners instead of one wife? Don't men get tired at some point of 'chasing tail'? Or am I being totally naive here? :)"
Alan's response: Well Penélope, it would be invalid for me to say that "all men hate monogamy." That is so not true. A more valid comment for me to state would be "all men with womanizing, promiscuous desires and intentions hate monogamy." Not all men have promiscuous tendencies. Just like not all men are into sports.
It is my belief that when you do anything because you feel you "have to," you are not going to be happy in the long-run. If you are having sex with only one woman because that is what you truly want to do, you are going to be happy. If you are having sex with only one woman because you feel obligated to, eventually you are going to feel bitter and resentful.
I would never want any woman to be sexually faithful to me solely and specifically out of 'obligation.' If she does not have a natural desire to remain monogamous with me, then I would rather her communicate that to me. For me, sex and love are not interconnected. I could have sex with a woman repeatedly, and never find myself "falling in love" with her. Many men feel this way. Sex for many men is simply a 'stress reliever.' Like having a drink or smoking a cigar. Many men look at having sex with one woman for the rest of their life as the equivalent to eating one type of food for the rest of their life. Well ... I could eat chicken wings exclusively for the rest of my life, so . . .
Email feedback in response to my article, To be (a liar), or not to be (a liar), that is the question that all men face
From Raymond D.:
"Brother, I love some of the articles I read of yours, and other articles of yours I read leave me shaking my head. I am all about honesty to a degree, but the reality is, you cannot just walk up to women at a party or on the streets and just blurt out to them that you want to fu** them doggy-style for only three-and-a-half weeks or three-and-a-half months!! LOL. C'mon bro, you know I am telling the truth about your desire to tell the truth! Even the women who tell you that they 'appreciate your straightforward honesty' are not going to run the risk of being perceived as an easy-to-get-in-bed ho. Am I lying? You have to 'b.s.' women a tad bit in the beginning. For at least the first few days or the first couple of weeks. You just have to. This radical honesty that you're preaching may get you some brownie points for having big balls, but you are going to scare a lot of women away too. My opinion!"
Alan's response: So Brother Raymond, you are saying that if all I want is casual sex from a woman, I should just slowly 'ease into' letting her know that over a period of days, weeks, or even months, but then once I tap that ass, let her know that I just wanted some short-term sexual satisfaction? Sorry bro ... been there, done that, own the t-shirt factory (that's from the 80s!)
I refuse to give a woman the impression that I want to marry her, when I do not. I refuse to give a woman the impression that I want a long-term monogamous relationship when I know for a fact that I do not. I refuse to lie to a woman and tell her that I want to have sex with her indefinitely when I know I only want to have sex with her for two or three months. If I miss out on some great sex with a woman, so be it.
At some point, you just have to stop with the lies, and stop with the "b.s." All of these manipulative head games have left women bitter and jaded, and men too. If I know I just want to use a woman's body for sexual enjoyment for a specified period of time only, I am going to at least let her know that upfront and straightforwardly. And yes ... I want my brownie points for my big ass balls. My opinions!
Email feedback in response to my article, Columnist not to keen on the use of "subcommunication" as a form of seduction
From Ken H.:
"You my friend are not on the level of top-notch pick up artists such as Erik von Markovik a.k.a. Mystery, Neil Strauss a.k.a. Style, Richard La Ruina a.k.a. Gambler, Owen Cook a.k.a. Tyler Durden, Rob Judge, Eben Pagan a.k.a. David DeAngelo, Ross Jeffries, or any of the top coaches from RSD or Love Systems. Quit acting like you are!! You have no in-field videos! And you promote this crazy idea of men expressing blatant sex talk with women!! Who does that?? Is that a Black man's thing? (I'm not being racist - honest question) You need to be teaching guys how to charm women and build rapport before they get in a woman's pants. That is what ALL of the top dating coaches teach their followers. You cannot just walk up to a woman and say, 'Hey, my name is Ken, and I want to bang you silly!' No my friend, not a chance! Please show me some honest testimonials from guys who have read your books that say they get laid by being as blatantly sexual with women in their first conversation with a woman as you say you are in your first conversation with women. I have a hard time believing that you, or your followers, have success getting laid being that blunt! I don't believe it!! Show me in a video!!"
Alan's response: First off, I have never referred to myself as a 'pick up artist' or "PUA." Never. Never have, and never will (to read my general definition of a pick up artist, click here and then look for my description of "#5" in my list of the 7 types of womanizers). Most pick up artists exhibit what I refer to in my book as "Mode Three Behavior" (i.e., trying to get laid by pretending that you're not trying to get laid) and sometimes, "Mode Two Behavior" (i.e., initially presenting yourself as a well-mannered, monogamy-minded 'gentleman' and 'nice guy,' but later you reveal yourself to be interested in just casual sex).
For starters, I respect just about all dating coaches who are teaching men to get over their 'shyness,' and overcome their fear of rejection so that they can ultimately approach more women. Any dating coach who is doing that gets points in my book. The seduction experts I am critical of however are those that encourage men to lie to women and mislead women about their true sexual desires, interests and intentions.
My question is this: If all you really want to do is 'bang a woman silly,' why not be honest about it? Why give a woman the impression that you genuinely care about where she went to college, or what her favorite science fiction novel is, when all you are really thinking about is receiving oral sex from her? There is a fine line difference between being 'charming' and 'well-mannered' and being dishonest and phony, just like there is a fine line difference between being upfront and straightforwardly honest in a seductive manner with women and being blatantly rude, crude and crass. My individual talent is that I am always conscious of where those 'fine lines' are. If you want a consultation on how to develop that talent, go to my site, and I will be glad to help you. Also, I do have hundreds of honest testimonials from many of my followers.
Sincerely, Alan Roger Currie a.k.a. The King of Verbal Seduction (you all didn't think I had a moniker, did you?)
P.S. I don't believe in those "in-field videos." Not with the type of conversations I typically have with women. What woman is going to give me her consent to have a video of our interaction uploaded to YouTube for hundreds or thousands of people she does not know to view? Very few. And I would never upload a video of that nature behind a woman's back. Not my style at all.
Email feedback in response to my article, Many men and women are often quick to 'Rush' to judgment when assigning labels
From Twaniqua R.:
"I don't care what yo Merriam-Webster dictionary says! If you a woman who be goin around sexin up different guys on different days, you are a straight-up HO! Money involved or no money involved. You are a straight-up HO. The only women who love to be hos are those with low self-esteem or have been sexually abused as a child or a teenager. No woman who be havin any self-respect is gonna lay down with a bunch of random mofos. Alan, you seem to defend them hos who be wantin to have casual sex because your horny ass be wantin to have casual sex. You are messin around with hos who are psychologically and emotionally damaged. How does that make you feel about yourself Mr. Writer?"
Alan's response: Do you have scientific data and evidence to support your claim that the only women who enjoy frequent episodes of short-term and/or non-monogamous sex are women who have been sexually abused and molested, or have been clinically diagnosed as having "low self-esteem?" If not, then you are projecting your own personal values, principles and sexual ethics on to these women. You are simply expressing your own opinion, and it doesn't mean much.
It is funny to me that many women will criticize men for calling women "bitches" and "hos," but yet women like yourself refer to other women as "hos" with a quickness. What be up wit dat yo? I say, if a woman enjoys having sex with me ... no need to call her a "ho" and if a woman is not interested in having sex with me, no need to call her a "bitch." I would call the former a "smart woman," and the latter "a woman who is going to miss out" (you'll get that next week).
Now I'm looking in my copy of the Merriam-Webster dictionary for straight-up HO. I found the term sexin in the Urban Dictionary, but I didn't find "straight-up HO" in either one Twaniqua. The closest I found was straight-up GHETTO (even though I kept the basic 'flava' of your message, I still had to modify a few words to make it presentable Ms. "I keeps it on da real"!! Believe me when I say ... I love all my sistahs though. Rough around the edges, refined, or somewhere in-between!)
Email feedback in response to my article, Rich men pay a price for being dishonest and misleading with savvy gold diggers
From Shani D.:
"Your article made me laugh. Out loud. Can I ask you something Mr. Currie? Who are these women who have (casual) sex with you for free? You seem like a cheap type. I bet you like to 'go Dutch' with women on dinner dates, don't you? LMAO. Listen, let me give you a reality check: All men pay for pu**y one way or another. Believe that. Either directly (prostitutes, call girls, escorts) or indirectly (dinner dates, concerts, generous gifts, etc). I don't sleep with any man unless I'm getting something out of the deal beyond his sweat, moans, and sperm. Any woman who doesn't get something out of sex other than sex is stupid, broke, or both."
Alan's response: I say, any woman who charges men money in exchange for sex is a prostitute, a professional Call Girl, an Erotic Escort, or all of the above. In other words, what the aforementioned Merriam-Webster dictionary calls a whore.
When I spoke in Las Vegas in March at the Direct Dating Summit USA, I told a group of guys that the dumbest thing a man ever did in our history was to give women the impression that their genitalia can provide more pleasure for men than ours can for women. Did you know that a woman's clitoris has twice as many nerve endings as the head of a man's penis? (seriously ... I learned that from one of the sexologists I had as a guest on my talk radio show; The average woman's clit has a minimum of 8,000 nerve endings while the head of the average man's penis has only 4,000 nerve endings). That means that on average, a woman experiences twice as much pleasure from having her clit stimulated than a man does from having his penis stimulated. And I should compensate a woman for that? I think not.
If you read this past article of mine, toward end of the piece, I identify the top five motivating factors for why some men will exchange money and financial favors for sexual companionship. The actual sex is the least of the factors. For example, men who are married or otherwise romantically involved pay women money so that the woman will keep her big mouth shut, among other reasons.
So Shani D. ... a.k.a. "Ms. I-only-have-sex-if-I'm-being-compensated": do you consider yourself a street prostitute, Call Girl or Erotic Escort? You know what they say ... if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck . . . you know the rest.
In closing, remember this age-old adages as you move forward in life: "Honesty is always the best policy" and "The truth will set you free."
One more: "A man who goes through life without tasting some great jerk chicken wings is a man who has not really experienced life at all."
Okay, okay. I made that last one up. It's still true . . .
Alan Roger Currie's latest paperback, Oooooh . . . Say it Again: Mastering the Fine Art of Verbal Seduction and Aural Sex is a combination of self-help, examples of erotically explicit dialogue that Currie has used in his real-life verbal seduction experiences with women, and social commentary on America's judgmental and hypocritical attitudes toward polyamorous dating and kinky, casual promiscuous sex. For more information, visit http://www.modeone.net. Currie is currently organizing a weekend workshop to be held in Chicago, IL that will be geared toward single heterosexual men and based on the contents of his books; For more information, click here.
Comments