Columns

Control Tower

How to Not Follow Relationship-Advice Books

  • comments (40)
  • Print

I learned how to have sex from books. My parents had some porn novels hidden in a closet, and when I was 12, I found and read them. It was years before I put the information—such as it was—into action, but it set a pattern. When I wanted to learn how to be kinky or bisexual or polyamorous, my first instinct was to read books about it. Reading is no substitute for real experience, but it's always been helpful for me.

Until recently. I've written here before that I don't understand how to have vanilla sex. Lately, I realized something: Forget sex—I don't even know how to date anyone from outside the tiny bubble of sex-positive cognoscenti. You know—normal people. I'm serious. How is one supposed to act on dates when you haven't already read someone's entire sexual/romantic history on his blog? When you haven't seen him doing BDSM in a dungeon or massaging naked people at a cuddle party? What do you talk about?

Or rather, what do you not talk about? Because I've definitely startled some men by casually referring to things like dungeons and large groups of naked people. Clever girl that I am, I eventually figured it out: Oh, I guess most women don't mention those things on first dates, huh?

So you know what I did? I read a bunch of books about how to date. I got Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider's controversial old-school manual The Rules. Then I read Date Like a Man by Myreah Moore and Why Men Love Bitches by Sherry Argov. To ensure gender parity, I got Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man by Steve Harvey and He's Just Not That Into You by Greg Behrendt.

Call me naive, but I was surprised at their nearly unanimous presumption that women always want to get married and men always shy away from matrimony. The one I liked best was Why Men Love Bitches, because Argov at least acknowledged that some women aren't desperate for a wedding ring, and overall her advice seemed the least artificial. It's saddening to conclude that to normal people, "not being artificial" equals "being a bitch," but at least it means I picked the right career.

But I don't want to get married, and I don't need advice about not being a doormat. So these books weren't terribly helpful, except to tell me, of course, I'm doing this all wrong. Apparently, I'm not supposed to have any conversations about sex on the first few dates, or even allude to having much sexual experience. Since that precludes any conversation about either my profession or my social life, I don't think I have a big romantic future with normal people. I still have no idea what I am supposed to do, besides lie. And never call him back. You normal women should really consider just being bitches. It's much simpler. recommended

 

Comments (40) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
yourmom.com 1
Fucking Puritans.
Posted by yourmom.com on June 4, 2010 at 2:54 PM · Report this
TVDinner 2
Meh, we're all doing it wrong, Mistress. I think that's the point of being a woman: having opprobrium heaped upon you no matter what you do.
Posted by TVDinner http:// on June 4, 2010 at 2:59 PM · Report this
Roma 3
I've definitely startled some men by casually referring to things like dungeons and large groups of naked people. Clever girl that I am, I eventually figured it out: Oh, I guess most women don't mention those things on first dates, huh? . . . So these books weren't terribly helpful, except to tell me, of course, I'm doing this all wrong. Apparently, I'm not supposed to have any conversations about sex on the first few dates, or even allude to having much sexual experience.

I would bet anything that, in general, women are much more freaked out by a guy mentioning sex on the first date than guys are by women mentioning sex on the first date. Woman after woman after woman has told me that if a guy mentions sex on the first date they're immediately suspicious that's the only thing he's interested in. Even if a guy thought that sex was the only thing his date was interested in, why would that bother him?

And all sex talk is not equal (or received equally.) There's a huge difference in a woman mentioning sex on a first date and a woman "referring to things like dungeons and large groups of naked people." A lot of guys probably would be startled by the latter but they're not going to be bothered by -- and, in fact, would likely welcome -- the former.

I'd be intrigued by a woman who had been with large groups of naked people but if a woman mentioned dungeons I'd have a hard time keeping from rolling my eyes since I find the whole dungeons concept to be silly.
Posted by Roma on June 4, 2010 at 3:22 PM · Report this
4
Those books define 'normal' like Sarah Palin defines 'Real Americans'. It's not as common a trait as you might think. If you want to date stuck-up prudes and self-involved, easily offended jerkoffs, then by all means follow their advice.

It would be nice if there were a real dating resource out there, and not just a bunch of Dr. Phils in book form.
Posted by I'm a liberal, no really on June 4, 2010 at 3:55 PM · Report this
5
P.S. The best dating and relationships book out there, of course, is The Ethical Slut.
Posted by I'm a liberal, no really on June 4, 2010 at 3:59 PM · Report this
Alicia 6
I'm with @2 on this one. Many are the dates and proto-dates that went downhill because I mentioned my love for Latin poetry, which is not nearly as scandalous as a conversational gambit.

In fact, Jaclyn Friedman talked about a similar issue recently: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs…
In her case, what scares the dudes away is the fact that she's a very public, very vocal, very pro-sex feminist. Opinions on rape kits etc. also tend to kill a first-date mood.

So -- no sex talk, no feminism talk, no classical languages. Um, there's always the weather? And now I am bored too. First dates are the worst.
Posted by Alicia http://aliciaaho.com on June 4, 2010 at 4:29 PM · Report this
7
And I've always thought that "kinky" WAS "normal"!
Posted by BobCA on June 4, 2010 at 4:41 PM · Report this
Unregistered User 8
Trying... too... hard...
Posted by Unregistered User on June 4, 2010 at 6:11 PM · Report this
Roma 9
2/TVDinner: I think that's the point of being a woman: having opprobrium heaped upon you no matter what you do.

If you're a woman who has that happen to her on dates, then I'd reconsider the kind of men you're attracted to. Believe it or not, there are men who find women interesting...but perhaps you're not interested in them for one of many reasons.

6/Alicia: I'm with @2 on this one. Many are the dates and proto-dates that went downhill because I mentioned my love for Latin poetry . . . So -- no sex talk, no feminism talk, no classical languages. Um, there's always the weather? And now I am bored too. First dates are the worst.

Alicia, is that all the topics you can think of for a first date: sex, feminism, Latin poetry and weather? How about music or books or movies or art or architecture or cool places you've visited (or hope to visit) or politics or issues? I've seldom had a problem finding things to talk about with a woman on a first date. My main problem has been women who talk and talk and talk without giving equal time to listening (men get a bad rap for talking without listening but women can be just as bad.)

Also, as I said above, all sex talk is not the same. I am positive that most men would not be turned-off by sex talk, per se. Just because they might not be thrilled hearing about dungeons or group sex doesn't mean they don't want to hear any mention of sex.

In her case, what scares the dudes away is the fact that she's a very public, very vocal, very pro-sex feminist.

Well, that's her take on it. Maybe the "very vocal" part means she's one of those women I mentioned, who talk and talk and talk without listening. I love a woman who's opinionated. But if she won't give me the courtesy of listening to my opinions, then I'm not interested in her.

More...
Posted by Roma on June 4, 2010 at 9:13 PM · Report this
Fistique 10
@9, good job proving @2's point.
Posted by Fistique on June 4, 2010 at 11:38 PM · Report this
Danrilor 11
This column gave me a good laugh, MM. Your reading these books is like someone reading about how to build a coffee table when they are alergic to wood and don't drink coffee. These books are not about how to have relationships, despite their pretensions. In this case the coffee table in question is getting married, which may be an end in itself but in most cases is a means to an end. I always cringe when I hear people like that called "Normal." I've been married (to a woman!) for 10 years without ever spending a single day feeling normal because of it. The tongue lashings I get daily from the little woman are far worse that anything I could endure in your dungeon.
Posted by Danrilor on June 5, 2010 at 5:55 AM · Report this
12
I think that when you have an identity (sexual or otherwise) that falls pretty far outside of normal, you have to look for your dates in a pool of people who flock to that identity. A Mistress such as MM trying to find a cool date in the "normal" pool is like a gay person trying to find a date with people of their preferred gender without first learning their sexual orientation. 9 times out of 10, it's not going to end well.

Even if you think there may be some hidden gems in the bigger pool, you've got to fly your freak flag from the start. What always worked best for me was identifying the "different" things about me and putting that out there before going on any dates - in my case, using dating websites worked very well. I shudder to imagine the bad dates I would have had if I'd let guys pick me up cold based on my looks or my laugh or some other superficial trait. People make better, quicker choices when they have good information.

And yeah, I agree, most dating books are crap.

Posted by strange observer on June 5, 2010 at 8:27 AM · Report this
13
10 FTW
Posted by Rx on June 5, 2010 at 9:24 AM · Report this
Roma 14
10/Fistique: @9, good job proving @2's point.

There was no "point." It was "we-poor-women-can't-do-anything-right" whining.
Posted by Roma on June 5, 2010 at 10:26 AM · Report this
15
I don't get the point of dating if you're not going to be who you are.

Been married close to 30 years - no lies, no pretending. Not always polkadots & moonbeams, just reality. Pretty damn good, too.

"Compromises," pretense - it's a cheat of who you are, and cheats anyone who might believe it.

Cut to the chase - be real. It is what is is.

Life's too short to play games.
Posted by Alpha on June 5, 2010 at 1:20 PM · Report this
16
> Since that precludes any conversation about either my profession or my social life, I don't think I have a big romantic future with normal people.

LOL! I often thought the same thing (being a poly, kinky sex worker myself). I don't get vanilla dating either, but so far it hasn't prevented me from finding happiness. ;)
Posted by Undine on June 5, 2010 at 3:20 PM · Report this
17
If you're going to try a dating guide (and there's no reason why you should) I thoroughly recommend "Jane Austen's Guide to Dating" by Lauren Henderson. It's much more common sense and it's about finding the right partner for you and having a well-functioning relationship (not about "snaring" someone. The author spent some time in New York and her description of the dating scene there terrified me! It seems so much more straightforward on this side of the Atlantic.

Mind you mostly I just enjoyed it because I adore Jane Austen.
Posted by english_thorn on June 6, 2010 at 3:44 PM · Report this
18
Perhaps I no longer fall under "vanilla" category, but I find the whole idea to be rather "vanilla". Unless the guy is on the very opposite end of the scale, talking about dungeon of naked people would probably increase interest level, rather than decrease it. Depending on what the goal of the date is, I rather think it's a win/win situation. Unless the impression provided is opposite of date's goal, ie short term impression with longterm goal.
Posted by Zubaka on June 6, 2010 at 9:21 PM · Report this
19
"I've written here before that I don't understand how to have vanilla sex."

You also stated that vanilla sex was the same thing as sex without communication. It is understandable that a bdsm pro can't have good sex without communication- this would be like a shrink giving therapy without communication (but for the record, I thought "vanilla" just meant no bdsm; so your definition was a bit too broad).

"Lately, I realized something: Forget sex—I don't even know how to date anyone from outside the tiny bubble of sex-positive cognoscenti."

Part (and I mean only part) of the problem is that you think you are much cooler than people that aren't into unusual sex, as evidenced by your indirectly labeling them as sex-negative. While you may in fact be cooler than these people, your feelings of superiority probably shine through in ways both subtle and direct. This is a turn-off, so you are not eliciting their best (i.e., turned on) responses.

"How is one supposed to act on dates when you haven't already read someone's entire sexual/romantic history on his blog?"

Nobody knows. It sucks.

"When you haven't seen him doing BDSM in a dungeon or massaging naked people at a cuddle party?"

Now you are using circular reasoning. You can't date people who aren't into unusual sex because you haven't seen them have unusual sex?

"What do you talk about?"

Nobody knows. It sucks.

"Or rather, what do you not talk about?"

Just talk sweetly, move around in a gentle circle, then move in slowly as things open up.

"Because I've definitely startled some men by casually referring to things like dungeons and large groups of naked people."

Right. And I'm sure these were guys in whom you were really interested, and you had no intent to shock them to get rid of them and have a little laugh.

"Clever girl that I am, I eventually figured it out: Oh, I guess most women don't mention those things on first dates, huh?"

Most people don't, regardless of sex. Not that this is necessarily right or wrong.

"So you know what I did? I read a bunch of books about how to date."

With an open mind, I'm sure.

"Call me naive."

Uhhh .... no.

"I was surprised at their nearly unanimous presumption that women always want to get married and men always shy away from matrimony."

As long as you insert the word "almost" in front of "always", there is some truth here. These are advice books for the general reading public, not tailor-made life advice for people with exceptional priorities.

"The one I liked best was Why Men Love Bitches ... overall [Argov's] advice seemed the least artificial."

Something can fail to connect with you and still not be artificial. Why can't you just say: "I feel that Argov understands women like me more than the other authors do"? That way, you give her the props she deserves without implying that somehow you are less artificial than those who prefer the other books. It may in fact be true that you are less artificial than these other people, but wearing your belief in this on your sleeve is a big turn off for most people, and as said above, this likely elicits "turned off" behavior when dating vanilla people.

"It's saddening to conclude that to normal people, 'not being artificial' equals 'being a bitch.'"

This is quite a cop out; one used by many bitches of both sexes.

"but at least it means I picked the right career."

Actually, if you are a good dom, you are probably not a bitch. You listen, pay close attention to what others want, then give it to them in a safe and respectful way. Being strong and getting paid in the process is not bitchy, even if pretending to be a bitch is often part of the act.

"But I don't want to get married."

Now you're being credible.

"and I don't need advice about not being a doormat."

And now you're being even more credible.

"So these books weren't terribly helpful"

Now you're being less credible. You knew darn well going in that these books weren't going to help you; you just read them so you could re-affirm how cool and self-aware you are.

"except to tell me, of course, I'm doing this all wrong."

Jeeezuss. What you are doing with your life is just great ... for you. It is not a model that would work for most of the other people out there- you know, the people that those books were written for. You're like a punk rocker complaining that they didn't learn anything useful from a class in pop music composition.

"Apparently, I'm not supposed to have any conversations about sex on the first few dates. or even allude to having much sexual experience."

OK, since I'm too lazy and busy to actually read these books, can you please cite and quote the parts that lay down this rule? This does sound a bit prudish. Did they really say this?

"Since that precludes any conversation about either my profession or my social life."

It is true that most guys would not seriously date a dominatrix, so you are probably saving them from wasting their time by being upfront. Yes, this reflects sex-related hypocrisy of societal norms, but you must have known this going in. What were you really looking for?

"I don't think I have a big romantic future with normal people ... I still have no idea what I am supposed to do, besides lie. "

Well, did you really want a big romantic future with normal people? Or were you just fishing for writing material? If you really want to date a normal guy, the first thing you need to do before leaving the house for the date is to look yourself in the mirror and repeat three times: "I'm not too cool to date this guy." (Don't worry about the fact that this is probably a lie- lies can become self-fulfilling prophecies in good ways, not just bad ways.)

"And never call him back."

That's bad advice. It's OK to call him back.

"You normal women should really consider just being bitches. It's much simpler."

Giving up is always simpler. And again, you're probably not really a bitch. Do you think you are a bitch? If so, why? (And please don't pull that bullshit about how all strong, independent women are considered bitches.)
More...
Posted by kungfujew on June 6, 2010 at 10:01 PM · Report this
20
Dear Mistress Matisse - Please stop! STOP trying to date "normal" people! You are normal; what everyone else is is sexually repressed! Humans evolved to have promiscuous sex, topped off with marriage (open) - so that's NATURAL. Then, after the Agricultural Revolution, they started selectively breeding themselves, as well as plants & animals; and then women became PROPERTY, for the purpose of breeding! This UNNATURAL behavior is still what the vast majority of the World's people (even here in the U.S.) think of as "proper" behavior - and the best selling dating guides therefore reflect that. A FREE Woman will therefore (except within small enlightened circles) always be looked at as "improper"; after all, if you were a "decent" Woman, you wouldn't even HAVE any sexuality, except to please your future "Massa" - I mean husband! THIS, very ancient, problem, is why you will more often than not encounter problems in dating just "any guy".

I remember my first date; we had a great time, then I innocently remarked on some of the other girls in our church I found attractive. She reacted in total horror, the date was ruined; and she would never date me again! For years I thought that my big mouth was at fault; but I finally realized that she was just way to sensitive about sex, to be someone that I should try to date!

P.S. - If you want to read more about Human Sexual Evolution, both Biological & Cultural, I suggest you read The Conclusion of the Sexual Revolution, by Wylark Day, Chapter 12. It was written for Christians, so you would probably find it rather Wierd; but it's the best Sex Education there is!!!
Posted by Sex Ed. on June 6, 2010 at 10:35 PM · Report this
TVDinner 21
@14: No, it wasn't. It was "fuck-'em-and-be-who-you-are-even-if-they-run-screaming."
Posted by TVDinner http:// on June 7, 2010 at 1:09 AM · Report this
22
So I'm not bitch enough?
Oooooooooooookaaaaayyyyy....that might explain some things....

Thanks, Mistress Matisse!!!
Posted by auntie grizelda on June 7, 2010 at 3:14 AM · Report this
23
@12: I second that--most dating books really ARE crap. And WTF is with "dating COACHES"?!?

Soooooo----I'm not bitch enough?...
hmmmmmmmm....that might explain some things....

Thanks, Mistress Matisse!
Posted by auntie grizelda on June 7, 2010 at 3:19 AM · Report this
24
Sigggghhh..sorry---slow computer again!
Posted by auntie grizelda on June 7, 2010 at 3:20 AM · Report this
25
Mistress Matisse, I have been a fan of you and your writing for many years but I think that kungfujew is right on the money with this one. I'm about as "normal" as can be. You're no cooler than me. Just different. And I think you're awesome, please be yourself. Many of us normal folk love making friends with all sorts of people different to ourselves and won't see you as an outcast or a threat unless that is what you project to us. I always look at another person as a human first before a dominatrix, queer or other classification. xo
Posted by Catty on June 8, 2010 at 1:58 AM · Report this
ams_ 26
The reason these books don't speak to you, MM, is because you actually have two brain cells to rub together. It has nothing to do with "normal".

Maybe your inability to have a good date with a "normal" is because 1) you don't share the same interests and 2) you are filled with contempt for them.

Or maybe you're picking jerks. Maybe the same jerks who decided the key to finding a woman was to "be more jerky".
Posted by ams_ on June 8, 2010 at 3:24 PM · Report this
27
Dating is artificial and silly. Of course it's hard to do. It's much better to hit on your friends girlfriends. That way, you'll have no friends (which are a waste of time, really) and you won't have to go on dates (which are a waste of time, really). Eventually, you'll either wind up with an ex-friend's girlfriend or run out of friends. Which is OK, because without any friends or a girlfriend, you'll have plenty of time to find new friends.
See? Easy.
Posted by ctmcmull on June 8, 2010 at 4:26 PM · Report this
28
Look, the problem is that dating advice books are not like books about BDSM. Your BDSM books are how-to's on a specialized topic -- they're the sexual equivalent of "Perl for Dummies." Dating books are for people who have not mastered a basic life skill; their target audience is unsuccessful, broken-spirited, and kind of dumb. They're the sexual equivalent of "The Secret."

It's not that straight/vanilla people are so awful compared to the BDSM community. It's that people who need a book to tell them how to go on an ordinary date are pretty screwed up.
Posted by drizzle89 on June 8, 2010 at 5:41 PM · Report this
29
I thought your column was kind of sweet. I'm not really sure I see your dichotomy between "vanilla" sex and every other kind. It's all just part of various spectra, no?

The most important thing to find out on a first date is whether you have compatible values and world-view. Be clever: you can get that information in many ways. Do you want to be friends ... is this the sort of person you would trust with your secrets?

You're a professional: can you objectify your profession enough to talk about it dispassionately?

What will be important to the right man isn't necessarily what you do, but how you think about it and how you see yourself.

Forget the books: go with your instincts.
Posted by Krunch on June 8, 2010 at 6:20 PM · Report this
ScaryMara 30
MM- It seems like you have the same problem a lot of people in my line of work (Theatre) have, or indeed any profession that is also a lifestyle. The hours are crazy, your social group is made up of the same group of people you work with, everybody in that world 'gets' you and is down to talk shop whenever-and its an industry that is misunderstood and has a lot of mythology built up around it.

I wish I could say that metaphor gave me some insight....but it didn't. Good luck!
Posted by ScaryMara on June 9, 2010 at 7:50 AM · Report this
31
Here's confessing my own bizarre, shameful kink: not BDSM, not caged with electricity, not groups of Bulgarian dwarfs on trapezes with geese and Mazola. Me, I simply don't believe in monogamy. That's it. For a single white straight guy in his 50s, this is dating death.

If the ladies freak at that one -- and they sure do! -- I think it's too much to expect someone in the general population to even wrap their heads around your lifestyle, let alone accept it as a lover.

Any clever, compassionate strategies to deal with the dating dilemma above would be appreciated.

Posted by Token Straight Old dude on June 9, 2010 at 1:25 PM · Report this
J-Haxx 32
@31 You would not change and suddenly believe in monogamy after a few dates, so it really isn't reasonable to expect the other person to suddenly change and believe in non-monogamy. There is no right or wrong, it is just incompatibility. But there are tons of polyamorous ladies out there dating, try and find them rather than dating from the general pool.
Posted by J-Haxx http://defyaugury.livejournal.com on June 9, 2010 at 4:22 PM · Report this
33
Wow! What a load of hyper-pretentious bullshit. Just because you are kinky doesn't make you not normal. Most people are kinky. You just choose not to date. I have gone on dates with "normal" guys that have surprised the hell out of me and gone on dates that bored me to death. The bottom line is that no two people are the same, some quys want to only talk about sex, some are scared to death of the topic and some would rather be with men but haven't admitted it to themselves. If you want to get married, just like if you want to have a trustworthy person in your scene, you have to feel that human being out, figure out who they are and if they fit into your universe. There are books that give you guidelines to doing that even though they are proscribed and a bit cheesy because just like in the BDSM scene and the polyamory/polyandry communities, there are rules of engagement. I don't think that being openly kinky makes you all that interesting or weird. It just means that you are openly kinky and that is how you define yourself.
Posted by boots on June 10, 2010 at 12:43 PM · Report this
34
@20:

"Dear Mistress Matisse - Please stop! STOP trying to date "normal" people! You are normal; what everyone else is is sexually repressed!"

The meaning of "normal" is defined mathematically and, at least with regards to the topic being discussed, Mistress Matisse would be hard to describe as normal. This isn't a moral judgement; it's simply a statement of fact which recognizes that most people are not regular participants in bsdm sex. If everybody else *were* sexually repressed, thinking or behaving otherwise would (by definition) be abnormal.
Posted by hotdogs on June 11, 2010 at 10:09 AM · Report this
35
Hahahaha! This is one of my favorite columns from you yet (and I've been reading you for years)! I don't know how many times people have told me to read "The Rules" or give me helpful advice along the lines of "don't have sex too early in a relationship", "don't pursue him", ect.

Fuck that. The best relationship I ever had in my entire life started as an MSN masturbation session. And that would have never happened if I'd followed "The Rules".
Posted by RWgirl on June 12, 2010 at 4:28 AM · Report this
36
Alot of men lament women only wanting marriage (and not sex). But in reality, they don't know what to do with a woman who owns her sexuality and isn't necessarily looking for a ring. My experience has shown me that all the things "they" say men want in a woman are the same things that make them leave a woman or not start with her in the first place.
Posted by tooManyDates on June 12, 2010 at 12:49 PM · Report this
37
There are no "normal" people. They're merely regular.
Posted by Crash on June 12, 2010 at 3:06 PM · Report this
38
Wow, kungfujew and Roma really got it right on this one, in so many ways. This column was a) something to write about on deadline b) a way for Matisse to show once again how much cooler she is than most of us (hey, we knew that already) c) as kungfujew said, she KNEW that those books wouldn't help her d) why would she (or we) EVER THINK she could have fun dating "normal" people. e) finally, what's wrong with actually DOING something on a first date, at least that way one can cut thru some of the pretensious bullshit.
Posted by olderwithmoreinsurance on June 16, 2010 at 8:53 AM · Report this
39
Mistress Matisse,

Setting aside the sarcastic self-deprecating theme, you make two points in your column: That there are really bad advice books out there (I completely agree) and that dating (getting to know someone and revealing yourself) is awkward and scary.

I think you live in a fairly well-know and controlled environment. Your community knows you and you know the people in it. You know what they want, how they react, what they offer you. You play and socialize in an arena where you have a great deal of control, where you are comfortable. Where you are safe.

The "vanilla" world doesn't come with the same prior knowledge; you have less control and are outside you comfort zone. There is actually risk (and reward) involved, the same that is present in any situation that pushes boundaries. I think you're familiar with that process.

That's why I'm so surprised by your reaction to trying out dating: I would have expected you to jump in with both feet, been exactly who you are (boldly and without reservation) and let anyone who didn't like it walk away (or cower attractively). Instead, you hid; buying into the myth that strong is bitchy. In fact, disappointingly, you even encourage the myth.

Even if you don't want to date a few "vanilla" people, I recommend trying again. This time, take the risk and be yourself. You might be surprised.
Posted by red tie on June 24, 2010 at 3:47 PM · Report this
ex-neocon poly wife 40
Mistress, if I ever run into you at a party, I am going to have a conversation with you about this. Frankly, I ignore the advice books and go with my gut. After meeting some decent guys that way that are pretty damn hot, I think I can attest to the fact that being open and genuine about what you are looking for, maintaining a certain subltety while still having the important conversations, seems to be pretty damned effective--including "Sex is really important to me," even. I think testing the waters and watching reactions is also beneficial. I don't think these conversations you mentioned are taboo like the books say. I think honesty with an eye to the other person's comfort level is the smartest thing that ever could possibly take place. And don't be afraid to say to yourself "Okay, this would be like putting a square peg in a round hole. It's just not going to work out." I've figured out what works for me pretty effectively and I no longer mess around with anything else. Give me a hot artist--writer, producer, or fine arts, and I can pretty much guarantee a good fit most of the time. I've also found that I really like stressed out hot geeks, kinda the real world Justin Long types. As long as they come with a spousal recommendation, it's generally a really good deal, too.
Posted by ex-neocon poly wife http://aphroditesdreams.blogspot.com/ on August 5, 2010 at 10:19 PM · Report this

Add a comment