Well, it's that time again. I present you with my 14th Edition of Feedback from Readers. As most of my long-time readers know, I usually feature feedback I have received from male and female readers after every five-to-seven articles I have had published for my column. Since my last installment of Feedback from Readers, I have had five articles and one movie review.
Hands down, the most feedback I received was in response to my very last article about the "80-20 Rule" theory that suggests that in any social environment, approximately 80% of the women will compete with each other for the Top 20% of the most desirable men. The men were divided in their responses. About two-thirds of the men loved the article and totally agreed with my assertions, while roughly another third of the men disagreed with the whole premise of '80-20' theory. The vast majority of the women who offered feedback to me did not like much of what was said.
So, without further ado, here we go . . .
[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, The '80-20 Rule' theory explains a lot of today's problems among dating singles
From Kadeem M.:
"Alan, that article explains a lot of things for me, and made me understand the whole world of dating a lot better. That might be the best Examiner article I have ever read from you. I always felt frustrated by the fact that some men seemed to have dozens of women at their disposal while other men have gone weeks and months without female companionship. Your article brought it home to me.
My question is, you never really highlighted what particular quality about a man causes a man to be catapulted into the 'Top 20%' of the men. Is it his looks? How much money he makes? His reputation for being good in bed? What? Other than clarifying that further, I thought the article was great."
Alan Roger Currie's response: Thank you Kadeem for the feedback, the kudos, and the question. That article actually was the most read article on The Examiner.com last week in the category of "Life -> Relationships." As a result, my column is now the most read column on The Examiner.com in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, and the most read dating advice column on The Examiner.com in the entire nation. Similar to the Associated Press College Sports Polls, next week people might lose interest in reading my column and I'll drop down in the rankings. For this week though, I can point my index finger up and say "I am #1!!"
Honestly, I am not sure there is any "one characteristic" that places a man in that mythical 'Top 20%.' For some men, it might be his physical appearance. With other men, it might be their overall personality and sense of charm and charisma with women. If I had a gun to my head, and I had to lean toward one thing only, I would say it would be a man's reputation for being able to a) seduce women into bed, and b) please and satisfy women once he gets them in bed. In other words, his seduction skills and his sexual prowess.
Women are always going to gravitate toward men who can get them aroused consistently, and satisfy them in bed consistently. If a woman has not had sex with a man yet, then more than likely, she is going to go by what she has heard about him through 'word-of-mouth' from other women. As I discussed in the original article, the more sexual attention you are already receiving from women, more than likely, the more sexual attention you will receive from new female acquaintances.
Wealth is probably the most overrated factor. If a man is wealthy, but he sucks in bed, that man may attract women who are gold diggers and looking to 'use' him for quality-of-life support and financial favors, but those women will not genuinely be interested in sharing his company. Nine times out of ten, those women will have another guy on the side who is satisfying their sexual needs.
Email feedback #2 in response to the article, The '80-20 Rule' theory explains a lot of today's problems among dating singles
From Theresa K.:
"Mr. Currie, I did not care for your article about the '80-20 rule' at all. You seem to discuss women as if all of us are visually pleasing objects of sexual desire for the men to have their fun with, and then simply dispose of later. In your article, you said that many will women will 'settle' for a man in the Bottom 80% if they cannot secure the companionship of a man in the Top 20%. Personally, I will never 'settle' for any man. If a man does not have himself together, he is not going to attract my attention or interest. Finally, why do you talk about sex so much? Is that all men think about? You never talk about how to develop a loving, nurturing relationship between a man and a woman who are in love with one another. Did some woman break your heart to the point where you now hate the idea of a loving relationship that will lead to marriage? Is all you care about is engaging in many episodes of shallow, no-strings-attached casual sex? Be truthful Mr. Currie!! (since you claim you are all about truth). Men may have felt enlightened by your article, but I just felt disgusted."
Alan Roger Currie's response: Well, Theresa ... you can see that I did go ahead and feature your comments and questions (to the readers: this woman did not think I would). Let me break down your comments and question(s):
1) Do I believe that women are just "visually pleasing objects of sexual desire for men to enjoy for a moment, and then "dispose of" later? For some men, very much so. Do not be naive or delusional. I would never suggest that "all men:" view women that way, but I would be lying to you and misleading you if I were to suggest that NO MAN views women in that manner.
I know some men who are only interested in sharing a woman's company if sex is involved. If sex is not involved, they do not want to even be around women. That might hurt your feelings or ego to read that, but it is the truth. Again, this attitude is not maintained by ALL MEN ... but there are a good number of men who do possess this attitude toward women.
When it comes to engaging in short-term, non-monogamous 'casual' sex with women, I would argue that just about all men have that attitude. With me, the one thing that makes me different than a lot of guys is that I tell women this upfront. I have been known to tell a woman, "The only reason I want to share your company on Friday night is so we can have sex. I do not want to go to the movies with you, and I do not want to watch television with you. I just want to have sex." Either a woman is down for a series of interactions that solely and specifically center on sexual gratification, or she is not. Simple.
When I was pursuing an acting career back in the day, a talent agent of mine told me something I have never forgotten. He said, "There is nothing wrong with 'using' people, as long as you let the person know ahead of time that you are 'using' them. Employers 'use' employees all of the time, but the thing is, they tell the employee that they are using them, and they compensate them for their time and services. A relationship with your employer should never be mistaken for genuine friendship." I tend to feel the same way. Have I 'used' women just for immediate or short-term sexual gratification? Sure I have. Most men have. The only time I have harsh criticisms of this type of interaction is when a man is leading a woman to believe that he genuinely wants to be that woman's next long-term boyfriend or future husband, when he knows deep down that all he wants is a few days, a few weeks, or a few months of casual sex.
Encouraging men to be bluntly honest about their desire for casual sex is over half of why I wrote my first book, Mode One: Let the Women Know What You're REALLY Thinking.
2) You say that you will never, ever "settle" for a male companion who "does not have his stuff together." I have mixed feelings and a mixed response to that statement.
If you have a choice between a single, unattached man who "has himself together" (i.e., financially self-sufficient, responsible, industrious, etc.) and a single, unattached man who is lazy, unambitious, frequently unemployed, financially irresponsible, etc., then of course I would expect you to choose the male companion who has his life together.
Where I am critical of women is in a situation where a man is generally together, and single, but a woman will choose to romantically and sexually interact with a man who is married, engaged, or otherwise romantically involved because she feels like all of the single men are not up to par for her. Look at the popular television series, Scandal. Olivia Pope (Actress Kerry Washington) would rather be the mistress to a married President (Fitz) than be the main girlfriend to an intelligent, educated Senator (Edison). Watch that video clip I have included in this article.
This is the exact scenario that contributes to the validity of the '80-20 Rule' theory. Many women will gravitate toward a man who already has someone than gravitate toward a man who is looking for someone. The reality is, anytime you allow yourself to be a man's mistress or side piece - even if that man has himself "together" - you are essentially "settling" for the #2 (or #3 or #4) spot instead of the #1 spot in that man's life. Shame on you.
3) Have I had my heart 'broken' by a woman? Sure. At least once or twice. Most men have experienced emotional heartbreak at least once in their life. That said, my personal love life has nothing to do with my emphasis on the pursuit of sex in my articles.
The reality is this: Men do not think about being in a relationship with the same frequency or depth that the average woman does. I discuss this in a couple of my books.
I rarely meet men who say to me, "Man, I wish I had a girlfriend who I was deeply in love with!!" or "I cannot stop thinking about the idea of being married someday soon!!" Uhm, no. There is a difference between being horny and being lonely. A man can go months or years without a steady girlfriend or wife as long as he is having sex fairly regularly with one or more women. I know some single men who get laid more frequently than many married men do. The other thing is that men are extremely selective in regard to the women they desire to spend time with both sexually and non-sexually within the context of a monogamous relationship.
Ask any single man, "How many women have you met in the last year that you would have sex with two or three times, and then leave them alone?" Most men could probably think of 25-100+ women. Now, ask that same man, "How many women have you met in the last year that you would want to spend time with both sexually and non-sexually - without having sex with any other women - for at least the next five-to-ten years?" I would bet money that the vast majority of men you pose those two questions to are only going to be able to think of one or two women in response to the second question. Some men will not be able to even think of one woman that falls into that category.
One of the reasons why women love the idea of long-term romantic relationships is because if a woman has sex with a number of men while being single, they get called names (e.g., "ho," "slut," "easy lay," etc.). Men could care less about those types of labels and insults. So women feel like, "If I have sex within the context of a monogamous relationship, I will not be called any names!" Hence, their emphasis on 'relationship-talk.'
Don't believe me? Theresa, have two books published and see which one sells the best among men.
Title #1: "Finding the Love of My Life: A 10-Step Proven Method for Men to find their Next Wife"
Title #2: "The Pimp & Player Handbook: 10-Steps to Attracting and Maintaining a Harem of Beautiful Female Sex Partners for Life"
Title #2 would be sold out on Amazon.com for WEEKS. Especially if it was written by a woman.
Bottom line: Women generally gravitate toward "Love & Relationships" discussions. Men generally gravitate toward "Sex & Seduction" discussions. My articles are primarily geared toward the men. Now Theresa, if you want to read a more "romantic" article of mine, please check out Loneliness is sometimes the price you pay for romantic perfectionism. (that is probably my number one article that made my female readers say, "Awwwww ... that was such a sweet article!")
Email feedback #1 in response to the article, A strong desire for male attention leads many women into a promiscuous lifestyle
From Barbara H.:
"Mr. Currie, I read your article on women who become promiscuous because of their strong desire for male attention. I will confess: I was like this when I was in college (now I am happily married with three beautiful children). When I was in college, I never felt attractive or sexy, so I felt like the only way I could attract the attention of a man was to let him know that I was available to please him sexually. That technique worked. Once it got around that I would 'put out' pretty quickly, the number of men who talked to me and wanted to be around me increased significantly. The problem comes in when you realize that you are not really respected by these men. They are just using you for their own selfish sexual needs. I got called all sorts of names by men (and women), but at the time, I did not care. My thought was, 'at least I am popular with the men!' That article was hard for me to read, not because it was not a good article, but the truth of what you said cut deep. Keep up the good work!"
Alan Roger Currie's response: I received quite of bit of feedback from women in response to that article that was very similar to your feedback. Thank you for your honesty Barbara.
There was a scene from the Showtime series, Californication that highlighted this dilemma for girls / women. In one episode, Hank Moody (Actor David Duchovny) is called to the school to discuss the behavior of his daughter Becca (Actress Madeleine Martin). The school counselor ends up telling him and his daughter's mother (Actress Natascha McElhone) that Becca was caught making out with one of her classmates, and the boy was "feeling her up."
Hank became upset, but the counselor told him, "Your daughter's response was, 'how am I supposed to get attention from the boys if I don't let them make out with me and touch on my body?" I thought that was a good scene, and very realistic. I have conversed with many over the years who became promiscuous with men just so that they could get more regular attention from men.
Email feedback #2 in response to the article, A strong desire for male attention leads many women into a promiscuous lifestyle
From Byron P.:
"I don't subscribe to the label of 'promiscuous' for women or men. Either people are sexually adventurous or they are not. Flattery only goes so far, but if someone cannot make those toes curl and beads of sweat pop off the forehead when having sex, well there is not going to be a lot of sex. Therefore the hunt for that euphoric feeling during sex takes place and sometimes there will be many partners before finally finding 'the one' (or the selected few) who make a person happy, and sometimes that never happens and people are happy with having many partners throughout their lives."
Alan Roger Currie's response: Terms like 'promiscuous' always tend to be highly subjective, and the basis for controversy and criticisms.
I cannot agree that the terms 'promiscuous' and 'sexually adventurous' are synonymous with one another. For me, there are three terms that are similar to a degree, but yet different. Those terms are . . .
1) A man or woman who is a 'serial monogamist': Let's say you were to have eight sex partners over the course of a year. You had sex with one man or woman from early January to mid-February; then another from mid-February to late March; then another from early April to mid-May; and so on, and so on, and so on. This would be representative of a 'serial monogamist.'
2) A man or woman who is 'polyamorous': To be 'polyamorous' is the unmarried version of being in a polygamous relationship. So, if you are having sex with three different men or women over a period of weeks, months, and years, and all three of the partners know about each other, and they are totally cool with sharing you with other sex partners, that would be representative of being 'polyamorous.'
3) A man or woman who is 'promiscuous': If you are a man or woman who engages in a high degree of one-night stands and weekend flings with members of the opposite sex, and/or you engage in regular episodes of 'group sex' (e.g., threesomes, foursomes, orgies, etc.), then this would be representative of what most people refer to as 'promiscuous' behavior.
Personally, I have exhibited behavior that fell under each of these three categories. As far as being 'sexually adventurous,' I feel that has more to do with what you are willing to do sexually more so than how many people you are doing it with. For example, a couple who is totally monogamous with each other could do things like have sex on the beach, have sex on an airplane or train, videotape themselves having sex, or something else "out of the ordinary." In my mind, each one of those examples would be representative of a couple engaging in 'sexually adventurous' behavior, but neither partner could be accused of being promiscuous or polyamorous.
Email feedback in response to the article, Once a prude gets 'turned out,' there usually is no going back
From Dante R.:
"Alan, you are STUPID!! (I mean that in the 'you are crazy funny' way, not the 'you are not intelligent' way). Your articles keep it real bro. You keep sh** one hundred. I have always told dudes, 'some men like a ho as a housewife'. Different strokes for different dudes. Men always hatin' on women who are hos, but let's be real Brother Currie, we love us some hos!! Hos are freaky in bed, they do what we tell 'em to do, and they usually keep their bodies in shape. As far as I'm concerned, the 'good girl' types are overrated. They talk too much, they too bossy, and they are boring in bed. I had all of my boys read your article. Once you turn a good girl into a ho, she'll remember you for life. Even more than the guy who she lost her virginity to!! LOL"
Alan Roger Currie's response: If you think I'm funny ... YOU are the one who is funny!! Your response made me laugh out loud. Literally.
I cannot 100% agree with you. I would never say that "all men love women who are hos." For starters, it depends on how you define what a "ho" is. For me, I do not categorize every woman who is "freaky in bed" as a "ho." That is more so what I refer to as a "kinky freak." I define a "whore" (or "ho" for short) as a woman who seeks to exchange her sexual companionship for financial favors, materialistic gifts, or some sort of compensation. The dictionary backs me up on that definition.
On the other hand, I do agree with you for the most part that the notion of the proverbial 'good girl' is highly overrated. In today's society, there is practically no such thing as a 'good girl.' Sure, there are women who are more prudish than other women, and there are women who have had sex with far less partners than some other women, but I rarely meet a woman who is a true "good girl" in the traditional sense of the term For example, in my parents' generation, a 'good girl' was usually a woman who a) waited until marriage to have sex for the first time, and b) always wore clothing in public that was generally "conservative" and extremely "modest" in nature.
What percentage of women do you know today who have waited until marriage before they had sex for the first time? Or women who wear very conservative clothing on a regular basis? I would estimate that only a very small percentage of the women in today's society validly fall into that category.
Some women will say, "Well, I have never had a one-night stand or a weekend fling, and I have never had sex with a guy less than a month after I first made his acquaintance, so therefore, I am a good girl." Yeah, okay. If believing that makes you feel good when you go to bed, go right ahead. The term 'good girl' is just as valid for women as the term 'nice guy' is for men.
As I said in the original article, nineteen out of ever twenty women that a man interacts with on a regular basis has an "inner kinky freak" side to them. It is just as matter of which man has the seduction skills and persuasive charm to provoke those women to reveal that erotically uninhibited side to them.
Quick Note: In the future, I am going to be allowing a fellow Examiner.com columnist add her own thoughts to some of the questions I receive from my readers, and I will be adding my thoughts to some of the questions that she receives from her readers. That columnist is Nancy Salim. I will keep you posted.
Until the next edition of Feedback from Readers, you can always leave a comment below or on my Facebook page (if you do not mind your feedback being public), or if you do not want your real name associated with your feedback, write me privately on Facebook or via Email.
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. Visit http://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 to purchase a consultation.