A Weapon of Mass Seduction

The Failing Love Lexicon

Girl: Aren't those two dating?
Guy: They're together when they're together, and when they're not, they're not.
Girl: So basically you mean like every other New York relationship?

---

Him: I thought we agreed we weren't going to be serious about this.
Me: Define "serious." I'm very serious about this blowjob I'm about to give you. Now lie back and be quiet.

---

I've given some thought recently to how many times I've said to a lover -- or had a lover say to me -- that we "weren't looking for anything serious." And in some traditional, signified manner, this is true: I'm not looking to get married anytime soon (even if/when I do get married, it likely won't be very traditional), I don't consider monogamy a priority as much as I consider it something I can either take or leave alone, and I'm not terribly concerned about how long any given relationship is going to last. (If it's going well at the time, I always want it to last "a few more months." Anything beyond that is usually beyond my immediate comprehension.) In our society's generic, codified relationship-speak, these leanings usually translate to "I'm not looking for anything serious."

The truth, of course, is that I take dating, sex, romance, seduction, and relationships very seriously. I mean, obviously. I wrote a whole damn book about the subject. I plan dates in a way that would put Carl von Clausewitz to shame. I spend more time thinking about how to be effective in my romantic affairs than I do thinking about how I'm going to publicize my book when it comes out in December. (I'm not proud of this, but I'm just going to call a spade a spade and hire a publicist. If publicity were my thing, at least insofar as publicity is different from seduction on a grand scale, I'd have written a book on publicity instead of seduction.) So anytime I utter the words "I'm not looking for anything serious," even though by society's standards this is absolutely true, I kind of feel like I'm selling myself short.

Why must the word "serious," as it applies to relationships, seem to define only the kind of relationships that our parents' generation considered serious? Why are we discrediting our own levels of involvement simply because they often suit our lifestyles better than those in years past? I feel the same way about the word "commitment." My lack of need for any spurious guarantees about the future with a given partner has no bearing on how committed I am to making things work in the present moment. If anything, I think it's an even more honest and committed way to live -- if I'm not resting on the laurels of any promises we've made to each other, then I'm even more dedicated to making sure we're both happy on a day-to-day basis, because what's keeping us together is not any sense of obligation but rather the choice we make every day to spend our time with one another once again.

My point here is that I think we need a new relationship lexicon. The old vocabulary doesn't seem to do well by us anymore.

A few months ago my literary agent and I were having dinner and she mentioned having just sold the publishing rights to a book called "The New Monogamy." It's a book about how the present generation's version of serious, committed relationships doesn't necessarily equate to a partnership of two people who only ever have sex with each other. I was ecstatic -- this seemed so timely and progressive! Then she told me she was persuading them to retitle it "The New Erotic Couple." My face fell. Really? This is not at all the same thing, nor is it a title that would make me pick up the book. She said she felt the first title was too dry and wouldn't catch people's attention. But this is exemplary of the problem with our current romantic lexicon. Eroticism is not by definition linked to either monogamy or lack thereof. I have had erotic relationships of both the monogamous and non-monogamous variety. The other problem here is that no one has really been able to use the word "erotic" with a straight face since Madonna in the 80s. I'm even trying to bring back the word "lover" from its exile following that Saturday Night Live hot tub sketch, because "boyfriend" has too many monogamous undertones, "playmate" is too BDSM-specific, "fuckbuddy" is devoid of romance, "friend" is simply disingenuous, "partner" is too future-oriented, and "paramour" is both too antiquated as well as homophonic with the name of my favorite band. There is no word out there yet that means "person I am currently most frequently having sex with but don't worry you may also be able to have sex with me too if you want." I actually introduced the person I'm most frequently seeing and sleeping with with as my "unboyfriend" the other night.

See what I mean?

Either we need a new relationship vocabulary entirely or we simply need to stop being afraid of words like "relationship" and "serious" and "boyfriend" and start allowing them to work for us instead of against us. We need to allow them to evolve, like all language does, and start having attached meanings that are useful to our current lifestyles. I'm at a point in my life where I don't really care what people want to call things -- I believe that my involvements will come to define themselves naturally through their interactions and that any labels are only secondary affirmations of what's already there -- but it gets frustrating when I'm trying to communicate and there is no language for the things I want to say. And it's this same lack of language that causes my agent to think of a non-(traditionally)-monogamous pairing as an "erotic couple." We are struggling to normatize the relationship structures that work for us, but at the same time we don't want our relationships to be mistaken for the old normative structures that have been in place for so long. We want our own relationships on our own terms, but we neither want to have them mistaken for relationships they're not, nor do we want to have to use language that marginalizes them.

What do we do about this? I'm not sure exactly, except perhaps that until a new language is established or our old language evolves, I think it's a good idea not to care too much about what everything means. We live in a world where every social media site wants us to define our relationships with whatever labels and checkboxes they have available: "in a relationship," "single," "in an open relationship," "it's complicated," etc. It would be great if all our relationships fit into these neat little boxes, but they don't. Even when checked, they're merely hints at what is actually going on. I've started leaving mine blank entirely. Whether a box is checked is really irrelevant in comparison to the quality of time I'm spending and sex I'm having with any given person, and social validation is a really relatively minuscule part of what a relationship is actually about.

But I think we're discrediting ourselves and our partners by confining words like "serious" to relationships that have a picket fence in their future. I'm serious about every seduction I undertake. I mean, obviously. If I didn't feel serious about someone, they wouldn't be worth my time to seduce in the first place.

photo by Monty Leman

The Loneliness Epidemic

I was waiting in line in the deli on an otherwise very ordinary night tonight when I suddenly had a bizarre flash of empathy toward a complete stranger. The man in front of me stood silently, holding his sandwich and a bag of chips in both hands, waiting to pay the clerk. Though I knew nothing about him I imagined he must be hungry, waiting patiently for the moment he got to sit and eat the sandwich he ordered. Then I imagined that perhaps he'd been working all day and that this meal might be his first moment of actual rest, that he'd have to be alone with his thoughts, and that in that moment things he pushed aside during the day, things like loneliness and unease, might creep up on him. I imagined the pain and loss he must have experienced during his lifetime, the disappointments of failed relationships, the loss of loved ones, and the nagging worry that he might end up alone feeling that most of his existence had had little meaning to those around him.

Of course for all I know this man may have been happily partnered, or newly in love, or single in a manner that fulfilled him. But the odds for the scenario I described above are just as great. Loneliness is a veritable epidemic.

As a seduction coach, I'm in the minority of the population when it comes to being good at accepting love into my life. One of the things I've come to realize is that the average human being, whether for fear of failure or lack of skill or any other of myriad reasons, often screws up the possibility of love or runs away from it entirely before it even gets a chance. I see it happen all the time. Most of us are not good at this shit.

In theory, we can easily regurgitate aphorisms like "The greater the love, the greater the risk" and "I have no more to lose from loving as completely as I can than I would by holding it in for fear of loss," but in practice so many of us have extremely visceral negative reactions to the possibility of failure when broaching a potential new relationship, to the point where all our happy affirmations during our more lucid moments seem like bad Hallmark greetings in the moment of truth. We catch a glimpse of the possibility of happiness with another human being, and we chicken out. Simplistically, we're scared of rejection. But more relevantly, we're scared of what rejection will mean. Somewhere along the line, we started to allow our desired person's rejection of us to define our own identities: if he or she doesn't love me, then I am clearly not good enough. I am not smart enough, not pretty enough, not successful enough; I am unattractive and no one else will ever love me.

This is, of course, bullshit. When did we let other people start telling us who we are simply because of how they feel about us?

The truth is that to love someone is to commit an act of courage. It is never not noble. What defines any of us as human beings is the actions we take, not the way that others respond to them. When I love someone, I am proud of myself no matter what the outcome. Sure, if I don't succeed in a seduction I will critique myself and try to pinpoint what I could have done better so that I can learn from my mistakes,  but the point is that I am never regretful or ashamed of having taken the chance in the first place.

I spent some time with my mom today and she asked me about my finances, and asked me if I ever thought of how much money I spent on things, that if I could tally it all up and trade in my costly possessions as well as experiences, would I wish for the lump sum of money instead. "What I'm more afraid of," I told her, "is lying on my deathbed wondering why I have a huge lump sum of money and wishing I had done more exciting things during my life." In the same way, when I one day look back on my life, I would rather remember heartbreak after heartbreak than wonder why I held back my heart in favor of self-preservation. In both scenarios, I'd be safe and secure -- but to what benefit? Mere survival? As though it's any accomplishment in the end just to say that I'd stayed alive?

My mom then proceeded to ask me if I regretted the large sum of money I'd lent my then-boyfriend in the fall of 2008. When he was arrested and his business was shut down (and consequently the contents of all his business and personal accounts were confiscated), I loaned him the $25,000 he needed to pay for a decent lawyer in order to beat the charges. He is still working on being able to pay me back.

"What was most important to me about that loan," I replied, "was not so much about getting paid back right away, or even about ensuring my boyfriend's freedom. It was about being able to look at myself in the mirror. I needed to know that I had done everything I could for the person I loved, that when the chips were down I chose to give everything I had instead of choosing to be fearful and selfish. It's about the pride I feel knowing that I can sit across a table from any new person who gets to know me and look them in the eye and tell them that I did that. I spent $25,000, and I bought my own good opinion of myself."

It's the same when it comes to love. Acting purely out of self-preservation is essentially a selfish act, since it is necessarily concerned primarily with the self. When I love someone, it's not so much about whether I succeed or the odds of whether they're going to love me in return. It's about being able to look at myself in the mirror. It's about knowing that I did everything I could do, that I acted bravely, that I loved the way that I want to love and lived up to my own good opinion. If I were to die tomorrow, I would want my last actions to be executed in the attempt to make someone I love happier than they were before they met me. And yeah, if it doesn't work out, if the person I want doesn't love me back, it sucks -- but it sucks a lot less than feeling that I never really gave it a chance and always wondering what might have been. Because even then, at least I know that it was a dead end, and I allow myself the satisfaction of a definite answer and then move on. And I still get to be proud of what I did.

But I'm in the minority. Most of us are still victims of the Loneliness Epidemic, and we allow that discomfort, that fear of failure, to paralyze us. And it's so easy to theorize about making jumps and taking risks when we're not in the middle of feelings, in the moments right up until we start feeling sick to our stomachs waiting for the text message that is taking too long to come, until we start to fear that we have somehow allowed a bit of our wellness to rely on the presence of another person, until we start to realize how crazy we've become snarling at everyone who touches that person because we don't understand how the rest of the world could possibly not also be in love with them, until we start hating ourselves for allowing another person to make us feel so deeply uneasy. What we have to understand though is that most of these sensations are part of what it is to be human, and that the world where we don't experience fear is a magical unicorn world that doesn't exist. And also that the world where we don't need intimacy with other people is also a magical unicorn world that doesn't exist. And that all we can do is take a deep breath, design our own actions to give us the best possible chance of success, and then let the chips fall where they may.

This is also why seduction is an essentially generous action -- because when we seduce someone, we are essentially telling them that our desire for them is greater than our fear of failure. Most of our targets are also victims of the Loneliness Epidemic, and they're just as scared as we are, so when we take decisive action and allow them the safety of falling for someone who is already expressing desire for them and creating a safe space for it to flourish, we're relieving them of a great deal of that fear. We're helping them to help us. Instead of putting your target on some kind of intimidating pedestal, have some empathy for crying out loud!! They're feeling the exact same fear, and they probably don't even study seduction to learn how to cope with it.

What I wish most for the world is for people to better know how to be good to one another and how to give each other the greatest possible chance of success in love. This is why I do what I do. I don't want anyone to ever have to be lonely just because they're scared.

photo by Manzin

Hey Guys! Wear Makeup and Go to the Gym!

Hey ladies!

I have a VERY IMPORTANT NEWSFLASH for anyone interested in seduction. It turns out guys really value a woman's appearance! So if you want to score that guy you're interested in, you should go to the gym, eat healthy, wear skillfully applied makeup, and dress in clothes that flatter your body type. That's right, you should do everything you possibly can to make yourself look as hot as possible!

...Wait, what's that? You say you already knew that? You're surrounded by this information, you say? You mean to say that television, music videos, advertising, and every single magazine remotely tailored to your demographic is already telling you how important it is to BE HOT AND STAY YOUNG AT ALL COSTS??

Oh. Well shit then. I got nothin.

OH WAIT ACTUALLY I DO.

Okay, let's welcome back Serious Arden: It seems like I've gotten into quite a few discussions lately -- both online and in person -- with guys who are either somewhat confused or seriously misinformed about women's seduction techniques. It's kind of understandable on some level, because seduction, when done well, like any effective persuasion, goes without being noticed. Most guys, when they fall for you, shouldn't really know consciously that you've seduced them; they should simply know that they've fallen for you. (I'm a bit of an exception to this rule since I am publicly known as a seduction figure, but I tend to spin that to my advantage in my own way.) But most guys, when they try to look objectively at the goals, strategies, and obstacles in women's seduction, are blind to what's actually effective. (To be fair, most women are the same way about pick-up: you constantly hear disdainful remarks from women about how "Oh that pick-up stuff would never work on me" -- but then, who are all those PUAs sleeping with?) The main issue is that guys who would advise women in the ways of seduction usually have trouble divorcing their views of them as disciples from their views of them as potential targets.

So the reaction I mainly hear from guys on the thesis of women's seduction is usually divided into three categories, three types of girls and the type of advice they would purport to give them:

1. The Young Hot Girl: "Well duh, she can get any guy she wants! Go out and have a bunch of sex!"

2. The Girl With Potential: "Well, she COULD get plenty of guys if she would just go to the gym more often and wear more makeup and dress better."

3. The Girl Over 35: "Yeah... I got nothin. Sucks to be you."

Part of the problem here is that PUAs and the guys who follow them have become so accustomed to the reductive evolutionary psychology model that is the basis of schools of thought like The Mystery Method (and therefore subsequently LoveSystems and all the other schools that branched out of it) that no matter how much their techniques evolve, they usually can't escape the urge to paint everything in the broad brushstrokes of their own propaganda. And basically what this means is that they reduce a man's desirability to his perceived social value (his Survival quotient) and a woman's desirability to her apparent reproductive fitness (her Replication quotient). As much truth as there is to doctrines like The Red Queen and The Selfish Gene, when translated so deliberately literally to the dating scene today, it often comes out to sound something like: Guys are judged solely by their ability to lead the people around them, and women are judged solely by their youth and waist-to-hip ratio.

This bleeds into the interesting trend of the PUA community's tendency to undervalue women who hit a certain age -- 35, 30, sometimes I've even heard 28. Beyond a simplistic evo psych model (i.e., men are biologically programmed to desire women who can bear their children and pass on their genes, therefore youth is attractive) I don't really understand this particular predilection. Never have I seen more men in one demographic be so obsessed with the idea of the elusive 22-year-old female. I see men around me all the time who get crushes on women over 35. A close friend of mine is crushing on his 35-year-old professor. Another friend, a good-looking 22-year-old male, is happily dating a beautiful 60-year-old. A 40-year-old female friend of mine got married to a gorgeous male alt model last month. This idea that women simply have no options after 35 is insulting to BOTH genders.

So I asked my male business partner about it earlier today. "What's with this obsession PUAs have over 22-year-olds? When I was 22, I was still a virgin! Why do they seem to think that's the optimum age for women who want to score a high-valued guy?" He thought about it and answered me. Two things you should know about my business partner: 1., he's a PUA in his own right and has studied almost every PUA book and DVD available, and 2., in his studies to become a licensed social worker and addiction counselor, he currently helps run a therapy group where he counsels sex offenders. So he says to me, "One of the things I've learned counseling the offenders who seek minors as their victims is that the younger the age, the less fear there is in the approach. Most of the guys in my group do what they do because they're scared to approach mature women who will reject them. In pickup, on the other hand, you have a group of guys who have turned to the PUA community because they have approach anxiety, and a 22-year-old often seems the most desirable target precisely because she is unworldly and impressionable. Put them in front of a beautiful 35-year-old woman who actually has some tooth and they may find themselves intimidated." So here, my male PUA friend is telling me, pickup's reductive evo psych model regarding the desirability of exceedingly younger women may simply be a cover for their own residual approach anxiety.

I suppose I bring this up simply because you, my female readers, may start hearing some depressing notions from the sectors of the male seduction community who think they have women's situations all sorted out. And even if we subscribe to a more moderate viewpoint that there are women over 35 who are attractive to men but that they are exceptions to the rule, that's actually okay too. Because I am teaching you how to be exceptional, just as PUAs teach clueless, derpy men how to be exceptions to their own rules.

When it comes down to it, the obvious problems with the above purported male breakdown of women and their issues with seduction are as follows:

1. The Young Hot Girl: She is already competing for her desired targets amongst the other young hot girls out there. Being hot isn't a guarantee that she's going to get the guy she wants when he is already being approached by multiple other women of her physical caliber. Furthermore, she may have behavior patterns that will sabotage her (overtexting, jealousy, bitchiness) or she may simply have trouble making any kind of approach or escalating the interaction if the guy doesn't take the initiative. That leaves her to date the douches who approach her, not necessarily the hot guys she wants. As my friend Neil Strauss wisely said, "Women are seeking men of value. But those guys aren't necessarily going to be approaching them, because they're probably going to be... well, busy."

2. The Girl With Potential: Assuming the girl with potential isn't already maximizing her potential, then yes, she ought to heed the typical male advice of going to the gym and dressing better. But once she's done that and become a 9 - 10 instead of a 5 - 6, she immediately ascends to the former category of The Young Hot Girl, who still has plenty of aforementioned issues to face, and she probably also carries with her a lack of confidence about approaching or escalating from having once been less attractive. But let's say she's actually already maximizing her potential (maybe her extra weight is genetic, maybe she simply wasn't born with attractive features) and she's destined to remain a 5 or 6. In that case, she's going to be facing THE EXACT SAME ISSUES competing for guys who are 5s and 6s amongst OTHER WOMEN who are 5s and 6s. 5 - 6 relationships are no different from 9 - 10 relationships. Less attractive people fall in love with each other all the time and face the same exact issues forging their connections, and for would-be seduction coaches to be blind to this is kind of insulting to a great deal of the human race.

3. The Girl Over 35: Obviously not every high-valued guy in his thirties or forties actually wants to date a 22-year-old college girl. (And the ones who do probably won't interest a savvy 35-year-old woman too much.) And while she's accosted from every side with products and promises to retain her youth, it's far too simplistic to deduce that she can get any guy she wants just by staying hot. If she does, she's still back in the category of The Young Hot Girl with all its aforementioned obstacles. If she doesn't, that's fine too -- she's going to need more in her arsenal than looks anyway, so she may as well follow in the footsteps of seductresses like Pamela Harriman and Mme de Pompadour who retained their magnetism well into their later years. Which, actually, is what the Young Hot Girl and the Girl With Potential should also be doing anyway, because as I said earlier, being hot just isn't enough.

Here's my case in point, ladies. You all are very smart. If you're reading this blog, you already know enough to stay in shape, stay out of the sun, do your makeup, and dress well. My point?

YOU DON'T NEED GAME TO TELL YOU TO GO TO THE FUCKING GYM.

Don't let anyone out there insult your intelligence. There is FAR more to scoring a quality guy than being young and hot. I'm not going to say that being young and/or hot isn't important -- I'm going to say instead that you already knew that, and that you're coming to an expert to learn the kind of things that AREN'T already blatantly obvious. I'm also going to say that young/hot just isn't the full package. I was young and hot a decade ago and I had no luck with men whatsoever. I score way more quality men now than I did then because of what I know AND because I put effort into maintaining my appearance.

Don't seek advice from people telling you stuff that everyone already knows.

P.S. Wanna know the truth you guys? I don't even go to the gym anymore because I learned enough poledance skills to get hired as a gogo dancer twice a week at two different rock bars. Now I spend my workouts at a bar, on a pole, where I get paid, drink for free, hang out with my friends, and get approached by multiple guys a night. See? Build a better mousetrap.

photo by Manzin

Seduction Isn't For Whiny Bitches

I have a friend who's a natural born leader, and as a result, he's incredibly successful and has many people around him who follow him and contribute to his success because his leadership and vision is so strong. Recently we had a conversation where he mentioned to me that anytime anyone around him has a problem, they always come to him and often put the blame on him, and he wondered why the other people around him don't receive the same flak. "Well," I answered him, "it's because no one expects any better of anyone else. As someone who is accomplished and who gets things done, you are someone whom people come to in order to solve things. That's the price you pay for being a successful leader, and I suspect you'd rather deal with having that accountability to everyone than simply be another follower like most everyone else."

This conversation reminded me of a complaint I often make to myself in my head regarding seduction. As a self-proclaimed seductress, I always take full accountability for how a seduction or a relationship is going, and I take it upon myself to correct any problems I see pop up. Every so often, however, this can feel like a chore, and I will wish for a moment that I'd never even started studying or creating this work, that I was still just a normal girl who approached her relationships semi-blindly like everyone else, so that even if I failed, I wouldn't have to think or work as hard. So many times the thought crosses my mind: "Why me? Why is it MY responsibility to make this work? When am I allowed to be the problem girl and force the other person to deal with MY issues?"

And the answer to that is that seduction isn't for whiny bitches. It's for people with natural or learned leadership qualities, who don't mind putting in the work in order to get the results that they want.

The corollary to all this is that the people out there who don't study seduction -- which is, you know, the majority of the population, i.e., the people you're going to be dating -- probably aren't going to put in the same amount of work that you do. While you're listening to them and paying attention to details and reading into all the little hidden desires they can barely even articulate themselves, they're just being normal people. Once you become skilled at this work, dating can often feel like being a championship ballroom dancer trying to dance with a random person at a club. It's not their fault, though; not everyone decides to dedicate their life to ballroom dancing, and it's unfair to go out and try to dance with someone and expect them to be as skilled as you are.

Pretty much every time I date someone I have a moment where I'm like, "Why am I carrying all this weight? When is someone going to read MY mind, fight the good fight, break down MY resistance, and take it upon themselves to make everything work?" But the answer to that is, like my friend who complained about the accountability of being a leader, that that's the price I have to pay to get the results I want. And in the end I would far rather do the work that I do and know that I'm giving myself the best chances of getting the person I want than simply stumble around blindly and feel powerless and confused about finding love -- because believe me, I've been there too, and it's much worse.

So know that when you start to practice this work, you are going to have moments where your expectations will be unrealistically raised, and you will be disappointed by this nasty little reality called human fallibility. People will be oblivious, will act completely counter to their best interests, will let fear take over, will lash out when nothing's your fault, will make mistakes, will fuck up royally, all because they're human. Take a breath, chill, and let everyone be the flawed creatures we all are on the inside. Accountability sucks, but powerlessness sucks far worse.

photo by Jeffrey Clark

CONTEST: Title My Book!

Hello readers!

A few updates on the Arden Leigh front! First, my publisher has decided it is a good idea to push my book release date back to December. I know many of you have been anxiously awaiting its June release, and to all of you who have already pre-ordered the book, I apologize for the delay. However, my editors feel that it's a smart move since they plan on giving it a bigger and more extended PR push than they originally intended, and overall that will be the most beneficial for the book itself, for my writing, and for Sirens. So in the meantime, thank you for your patience, and I promise it will be well worth the wait!

Also, we have decided that the title "The Seduction Manual" is not the best, most effective, most eye-catching and inspirational title possible for the book. The book is an outline of a practical methodology that encompasses both dating and self-improvement, and my editors have expressed concern that many readers will interpret a title with "seduction" as being too narrow and focused too solely on sex. So we are seeking a phrase that will convey the fulfilling overall lifestyle that the book posits seduction to be.

This is where you come in! We are seeking title suggestions, brainstorms, and other awesome ideas from my readers and fans! What title, on the cover of my book, would make YOU want to pick it up and begin the journey toward creating an exciting life full of love and romance?

Please leave your title suggestions in the comments section here. The commenter of the winning title will receive ONE FREE HOUR-LONG SEDUCTION COACHING SESSION with me!

Thanks everyone for your continued support, and I look forward to hearing your inspired titles!!

 

(bye-bye, old cover...)

 

The Honey Badger: My New Seduction Hero

This is an amazing video and you must watch it.

When it comes to my love life, I want to be a fucking honey badger. I don't really want to give a shit about getting hurt; I would rather simply go after what I want without fear and let the chips fall where they may. And as a result I might come out with a few bee stings or cobra bites, but like the honey badger, I'll shake it off and keep going. And I'll reap the rewards of my pursuits as well.

Because the honey badger is fucking AWESOME. And I would rather be awesome and pay the price of getting hurt a few times than simply spend all my time sitting on the sidelines avoiding anything dangerous.

In seduction, be a honey badger. It's better to be awesome than not.

The Benefits of Non-Monogamy

I've been meaning to write this post for a while now -- and by "a while," I mean over a year. In pondering why it took me so long to start it, I realized that the main trouble with this topic is that it's not really an advice entry like the majority of my blog. Rather than recommending that you, my readers, subscribe to this particular philosophy, I'm more posing it as a unique and alternative possibility, a different -- and perhaps for you, better -- way of approaching things.

It's difficult for me as a seduction coach not to wholeheartedly endorse monogamy. After all, it's so popular among women. Most women, I would guess, read this blog in search of ways to attract, then isolate, then finally nail down into commitment the man of their dreams. And that's pretty much what I'm here to advise upon -- if your goal is monogamy, then I'm here to help you reach it.

But I've had some issues arise during monogamous situations in the past, and while I think monogamy's great on paper, problems often happen when it's put into practice. So during certain periods of my life, I've chosen non-monogamy as the best option for me, and I'd like to explain why I've felt that way.

1. Non-monogamy forces each partner to continue to work proactively on the relationship. Truthfully, even in monogamous situations, each partner should continue to work proactively on the relationship, but how many of us actually do? When we can put the official stamp on a relationship and say "This person is my girlfriend/boyfriend," there is a sense of safety and security that, while often pleasant, also allows us to slack off and take our partner for granted. We gain weight, get slovenly, treat our partner dismissively, or otherwise fail to continue to seduce, because we know that our partner is being fenced in by an agreement that if he cheats on us he will be ubiquitously deemed an asshole by our entire social circle. This isn't exactly the greatest motivation to stay with someone. Too often, this kind of pattern results in cheating anyway, or in the breakup of the relationship, or one leading to the other. Look at the divorce rate. When you box someone into a relationship, that relationship is still only as good as what's inside (or outside) the box. In a non-monogamous situation, however, we are aware that we must constantly strive to earn our partner's commitment, and it makes us better at being in the relationship. We wake up every day knowing that we owe it to our partner to be their best option, just as much today as the day we first won them, and we have the confidence to know that our partner is spending his time with us because he chooses to, not because his word obligates him to it. 

2. Cheating doesn't necessitate the end of the relationship. Let's face it, we all suffer from temptation from time to time, no matter how committed our relationship. The more something is forbidden to you, the more it will occupy your thoughts, and unfortunately, when it comes to sex, there is little that trumps novelty. "That which I have not fucked" will nearly always win out over "That which I have fucked." The irony however is that once fucked, those in the former category will be relegated to the latter. So often the best thing you can do to take the mystique out of that hot bartender at your local watering hole is just to give in and get it out of your system. This goes for both your man as well as yourself. Once the mystery is gone, the interest will likely dissipate. And if it doesn't? Then you or your partner were probably going to leave the relationship anyway. In a monogamous relationship, cheating usually necessitates a break-up or at the very least a whole lot of drama that comes with that breach of trust, but take away the "rule" regarding cheating and you will have fewer incidents that will cause you to break up with each other. You'll be able to continue to choose one another every day, not because you have to, but because you will have thoroughly evaluated the options around you and will still believe your partner to be the best one.

3. Breaking up is an unnecessary evil. One of the things that I love about seeing multiple people is that I don't ever have to break up with any of them. I just prioritize them based on how I feel about them and how they treat me. In a monogamous situation, if someone is treating you poorly, your options are basically to either put up with it or walk away from the situation entirely (even in lobbying for better treatment, you still need to be able to walk away in order for your pleas to hold any weight). However, when you have the option of seeing other people, you can simply choose to spend your time with whichever person is being the most fun. Instead of being stuck in a bad cycle and showing loyalty to someone no matter how they treat you, you can reward those who treat you well with your time and attention and punish those who treat you poorly with your withdrawal. Best of all, it gives those who treat you poorly the opportunity to redeem themselves -- if they return to you, ready to play nice, then they can come back. Your partners will learn, over time, that if they want to see you, they need to be nice to you. And if they're not, you can just as easily spend your time with someone else.

4. You're more able to evaluate who's actually right for you when you have multiple options. I try to teach women abundance mentality, which is the ability to hold the frame that there are many options out there that may be good for them. Too often I see women (myself included at times) who get so hooked on one guy that they feel completely uninspired to see anyone else, or worse, they feel that their seeing someone else will jeopardize their relationship with their first choice. Usually, however, it's the exact opposite: seeing multiple people will allow you to more clearly evaluate your various partners' strengths and weaknesses, and will allow even "that one guy you really want" to have to continue to earn you rather than take you for granted. Furthermore, it will allow you to appreciate who's actually right for you, and WHY they're right for you. You might learn that your first choice actually makes you feel miserable despite how attracted you might be to him, and that maybe your second or third choice, after a while, makes you feel so amazing that a more serious attraction to him builds over time.

5. You're not wasting time. How often do we hear women, having finally broken free from some asshole they were hooked on, exclaim, "God, I wasted so much time!"? If someone you were into ends up not being the right person for you, for whatever reason, continuing to see other people, however casually, will ameliorate the situation somewhat -- either someone else you're seeing WILL end up being the right person for you (perhaps surprisingly so, since we're more likely to date someone we might not otherwise take that seriously at first if we're allowing ourselves to see more than one person), or at least you will have had some other fun and excitement in the meantime -- at least you will know that you didn't let any other enticing options pass you by.

6. You can always be monogamous later. If you've been seeing someone for a while and he's really standing out among all your other options, making you feel good, and treating you well, after a while you will probably end up being monogamous in practice with him anyway, because you simply won't have a desire to be with anyone else around you. The difference is that you will have spent a significant amount of time making that decision, and making him prove that he's all he's cracked up to be. When we jump into monogamy too fast, we don't allow the space necessary for us to navigate someone's flaws and shortcomings, and we're often disappointed early on. If you are going to be monogamous with someone, it's probably better that you know him inside and out first, and go into your agreement with the confidence that the arrangement is going to work for the both of you. Often it'll just happen naturally, because you will both choose each other over everyone else again and again for the right reasons.

        *    *    *

It is the necessity of continuing to earn one another that makes a non-monogamous relationship, in my opinion, more truthful and genuine. The truth is that people in monogamous relationships also have to earn one another every day, but most of them aren't thinking about that all the time, and when they lose their partners, it comes as a hurtful shock. Had they been paying attention and, quite frankly, still healthfully competing amongst their partner's other available options, perhaps they would have learned to evolve with the relationship and with their partner's changing needs and been able to keep the relationship alive. But when you take something for granted that it's always going to be there, that's likely the moment you're going to lose it.

So no matter what the parameters of your relationship, be the better option. Always.

 

New Auxiliary Mag Editorial!

Much thanks to Auxiliary Magazine, who asked me to write an editorial on seduction for them for their Oct/Nov issue! I like their style a lot and it was an honor to write for them. Here's the link to the issue; my article is on page 5:

Auxiliary Magazine Oct/Nov 2010

(To check out the Pin-Up of the Month interview I did with them in the spring, go here and flip through to the middle: Auxiliary Magazine Apr/May 2010)

For easier online reading (and so that I can get your comments, my readers), I'm going to post the text of my editorial here... but you should totally check out the issues anyway for all the hot photos and other good content.

------------------------------------------------

The Duality of Desire

“Each day I choose the truth by which I try to live. I try to be practical, efficient, professional.  But I would like to be able always to choose desire as my companion.  Not out of obligation, not to lessen my loneliness, but because it is good.  Yes, very good.”  -- Paulo Coelho, Eleven Minutes.

When I was eighteen years old, I moved to New York City to attend NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts and pursue my dreams of being an actor.  On my first day of classes at the Atlantic Theater Company Acting School, where I was sent for my conservatory training, I was handed a stapled packet of a text called The Enchiridion, or The Handbook of Epictetus, to read during my first week of studies.  In the text, the Greek scholar dictates his fifty-two principles for a life well-lived – and by well-lived, he clearly means a life lived in moderation, without disappointment, and without pain.  Which is to say, a life without desire.

Remember that following desire promises the attainment of that of which you are desirous; and aversion promises the avoiding that to which you are averse. However, he who fails to obtain the object of his desire is disappointed, and he who incurs the object of his aversion wretched. …For the present, totally suppress desire: for, if you desire any of the things which are not in your own control, you must necessarily be disappointed; and of those which are, and which it would be laudable to desire, nothing is yet in your possession. Use only the appropriate actions of pursuit and avoidance; and even these lightly, and with gentleness and reservation.

The trouble with this was that I was an eighteen-year-old girl moving to New York City to pursue her dreams of becoming an actress, and I was nothing but desire.  I wanted things that I was willing to fight, starve, and die for.  I would cheerfully speak of the next several years of my future as “Oh, you know, that period when I’m going to have to live off of Campbell’s soup and peanut butter for my art,” and no amount of philosophy, no matter how ancient or lauded, could stop me from a relentless pursuit of the things I had my heart set on.

The idea that all suffering is brought about through desire is a nearly universal one, and not limited to the Greeks.  Eastern philosophy holds the idea as one of its most basic precepts: Buddhism states that all human suffering will end when passion is able to die out.  Christianity adheres to the thought that most anything desired too much will clearly lead to sin; in fact, of Christianity’s seven deadly sins, four are characterized by an excess of desire (Greed, Lust, Envy, Gluttony), and of the remaining three, one is characterized by what may happen when the object of a desire is achieved (Pride), and one by what may happen when the object of a desire is not achieved (Wrath).  Contemporary philosophers such as Eckhart Tolle have translated the concept of desirelessness into language that is more relatable to modern-day readers, proving that it is still pervasive throughout our society.  And though I’m no longer pursuing dreams of becoming an actress, I am still passionately rejecting the idea that I must want nothing in order to be happy.  Because I want things.  I want things a lot.

It is this innate, unstoppable, barely controllable passion that, through a twisted and circuitous series of events and professions, led me to do what I do today: I am a seduction coach and author; I teach women a proactive approach to getting the kind of love they want from the kind of men they want.  And unlike most dating and relationship tomes that deal with the possibility of romantic and/or sexual rejection by insouciantly filling their pages with the exclamation “Next!”, I make a point in my writing to take into consideration the idea that desire, especially an amorous desire for one specific person, is something too powerful to be shaken off by a simplistic, one-word mantra.  The prize in seduction, the light at the end of the tunnel, is too great a lure.  We don’t want to be told not to want.  We want to be told how to get what we want.

This is difficult.  Especially for me, now that I am beginning to achieve some degree of materialistic and mediacentric success surrounding my work, since I am supposed to be the woman who can tell you how to get anyone you want.  More importantly, I am supposed to be the woman who is able to get anyone she wants herself.  That’s a lot of pressure.  Because it’s nearly impossible to start upon a path toward any kind of pursuit if you’re not allowed to fail.

What I continue to learn more and more each day as I relentlessly pursue both love interests and career interests, the two of which forever seem to cross paths and intermingle inextricably with each other like so many briars in a fairytale forest, is that in order to pursue an object of desire wholeheartedly and without trepidation, it is necessary to first embrace the harsh reality of the possibility of failure. 

In other words, there is no reward that is without risk.  No pleasure without the possibility of pain.  This is the necessary duality of desire.

A popular adage goes, “The greater the love, the greater the risk,” and so it is that the more desire we have toward an object of our pursuit, the more suffering we risk should we fail in attaining it.  It is as though we are placing ourselves on an algebraic number line where the value of our desired positive outcome will always mirror the value of the potential negative one, and those who purport desirelessness as the means of achieving happiness in life would have us stay forever at zero, the midpoint, where we desire nothing other than what already is.

Perhaps it’s that my understanding of these philosophies is rudimentary at best, since their very precepts as I’ve come to understand them are so repugnant to me that I’ve barely taken the time to explore them terribly deeply, but that state of wanting nothing has always seemed incredibly boring to me.  I have sometimes thought that I would rather experience periods of extreme pain than constant monotony; at least there would be something interesting or valuable to learn from them, or at least they’d leave me with a good story to tell.  Living a life that is essentially an exercise in avoiding pain (even if that means avoiding the avoidance of pain, ironically enough) has very little appeal to me, and seems to come not nearly as much out of nobility as it does out of cowardice.  Pain happens often as a result of the pursuit of pleasure, and pleasure is too great a lure for me to sacrifice, so I embrace the possibility of pain as part of the overall package, despite the fact that it takes more courage to do so. 

For me, this is what seduction is all about.  Far too many would-be seduction pupils, whether male or female in their respective gender-divided institutions, join the fold because they think it will reduce or eliminate entirely the possibility of experiencing pain in their sexual and romantic lives.  They think of seduction as learning a cheat code to a video game, a set of buttons to push that will enable them to get anything from anyone at any time.  Were this the case, seduction would require no courage whatsoever; it would be merely a rote memorization of a skill set.  Seduction then would be the ultimate act of cowardice – learning an impersonalized set of actions to achieve one’s goal with another human being without the courage necessary to embrace the possibility of failure.

It is the fact that we risk that pain and the courage necessary to do so that make seduction so… well, seductive.  We are drawn to people who show confidence and bravery in the face of danger.  We are not swayed by those who are cowed by it.  This is part of what makes seduction an essentially generous action: that there is risk inherent in pursuing the object of our desires.  When we seduce someone, we are telling him that our desire for him is greater than our fear, that the pleasures we believe we might experience with him are worth the risk of the pain we might incur in their pursuit.  If there were a clear path to another person’s heart, it wouldn’t be an act of bravery.  And without bravery, there can be no seduction. 

I have to remind myself of this pretty often lately, especially now that there is so much pressure on me to perform.  If something goes awry in my personal life, it is up to me to either hide it from the public that expects me to be the woman who can get whomever she wants, or to spin it my way so that it’s viewed in my favor.  All of this makes it somewhat tempting to embrace desirelessness – if I want nothing, I will fail at nothing.

But as I have often written, the equivalent of happiness is not the avoidance of anything that may potentially cause pain.  I don’t know what happiness is exactly, but it’s not that.

At this point in my life, I embrace pain, because I know that it means that I’m choosing to live in desire.  And I know that if I welcome it with wide open arms, that if I scream from the rooftops for it to do its worst, that if I am able to revel in the sheer extremity of it, then it really has no power to hurt me.  In that moment when I wholeheartedly embrace the very worst that can happen – and moreover, when I love it for being the worst that can happen, when I relish it for allowing me to find elation in the worst of all possible outcomes, when pain itself becomes pleasure – that’s when I’ve become free.  That’s when I can pursue whatever I wish without fear.

And if I can allow myself to feel that way about the very worst that can happen, just imagine the joy I’ll be able to find in the pleasure of the very best that can happen.  That’s why desire is worth its cost.

photo by Jeffrey Clark

Don't Be Crazy

A few nights ago I was hanging out with this guy I know and at one point he turns to me and tells me that I'm not like most other girls. "How so?" I ask. And he says that unlike many other women who have crossed his path, I seem to remain rational and unflappable in the face of drama. He goes on to say that many women, in his experience, when faced with a misunderstanding, fail to let it simply be a misunderstanding that can be solved with some simple communication, and instead allow it to escalate into a freak-out, argument, or other form of drama (public or private) that he feels is ultimately unnecessary, potentially destructive, and -- perhaps most significantly -- unattractive.

I started thinking then about how much money women pour into various industries every year in the pursuit of being attractive. Plastic surgery, gym memberships, apparel, cosmetics, skincare, spa treatments, hair salons, diets, laser hair removal, personal trainers, manicures, pedicures, cellulite zapping, fake tans -- the list could be infinite.  And if you know my writing and philosophy at all, you know that I am a huge advocate of using external means to craft one's appearance into whatever icon or personal brand one wants to embody, for one's own pleasure and because we may as well spend our time on earth looking the way we want to look. But how ironic is it that the same woman who will gladly get a $10,000 boob job often won't take the time to sit down, chill out, and make a solid analysis of whether her actions and emotions, in a guy's perspective, are making her new bust size completely irrelevant?

Case in point: Don't be crazy.

Crazy, for the purposes of this blog entry, I'm defining as the following: overreactive, unnecessarily emotional, counterproductively angry, high-strung, easily pissed off, annoyingly dramatic, overly sensitive, and even slightly lesser crimes such as easily offended, passive aggressive, unapproachable, and bitchy -- i.e., frequently exhibiting behaviors that are typically found by guys to be turn-offs and even dealbreakers.

You'd be surprised how far NOT being crazy can take you, especially in cases where physical attractiveness serves merely as an initial qualifier. Think about it: high-valued men, the kind we typically set out to pursue, are surrounded by attractive women who desire them all the time.  Being physically attractive will get you in the running, but by itself it won't score you the prize. Guys who can have just about any girl aren't going to put up with crazy for very long. It's just not worth the emotional distress. We sometimes think that if we're hot enough or good enough in bed, we can get a guy to put up with almost anything, but would you really want to be with a guy who's that beta?  Furthermore, would you want a guy to be with you only because of your looks or sexual skills? That Buckcherry song ("You, you're a crazy bitch, but you fuck so good I'm on top of it") is a great song and I love dancing to it, but I would be mortified if any guy ever actually said that about me.

It's funny how easy it seems at this point in my life not to exhibit those kinds of destructive behaviors, things like embarrassingly public fights, incessant phone calls, taking everything personally, not allowing any room for error -- it certainly seems easier to NOT engage in any of that than it seems to, oh, say, go to the gym for two hours three times each week!  But it's difficult when you're in an emotional hot zone to remember to cool it down. Just know that I speak from experience. I used to exhibit many, many typical crazy girl behaviors, especially circa four or five years ago. I got into a lot of very public fights with my then-boyfriend because I was unable to control my emotional state well enough to save addressing the issue for a more appropriate time. An ex used to say that one of my greatest weaknesses was my utter and absolute need to say whatever I felt I needed to say at the time with complete disregard to whether it was the time or place for it. When a rage hit me, I couldn't keep it down. So believe me, I know how difficult refraining from craziness can be.

But somewhere along the line, something clicked for me and I realized that displaying these behaviors was actually keeping me from getting what I wanted out of any given situation. It probably started to sink in when I got my neuro-linguistic programming certification, since so much of the education was focused on developing, testing, and executing effective strategies to achieve your goals. What an epiphany it was to suddenly realize that yelling at my boyfriend within earshot of all our friends wasn't actually going to help whatever cause I was championing.

It is a very human thing to allow our emotional states to dictate our behavior. I lamented to my business partner recently that I was ashamed of a situation in which I had let my emotions guide my actions instead of sitting down to clear my head and come up with a strategy that would actually give me a chance of achieving my goals, that I felt that I'd failed. He responded, "That doesn't make you a failure, Arden. That makes you human. People out there are letting their emotions rule them 90% of the time. Be grateful that you're the opposite, that you fall prey to that about 10% of the time instead."

In a way I count myself lucky that I went through a crazy period, because if crazy ever does rear its ugly head in me these days, I generally know how to recognize it and handle it. So here are some tips on how to make yourself more attractive by not being crazy, and which won't cost nearly as much time, effort, and money as all the workouts, hairdressing, and makeup you do every day:

First, realize that crazy, in our brains, sometimes falsely manifests itself as "right." We don't feel that our actions are unreasonable because we believe we are "right" about the situation. This is often a terrible trap, however, because everyone else believes they're "right" too. The trouble is that not a single human being on the face of the earth is able to see an objective reality; we all view everything through our own unique filters and ultimately the bulk of our experience and memories is only a step up from an opinion. So you and your man both have an equal chance of being right, and since there's no judge around to declare one of you the winner, you might as well give up on the whole notion. Realize that when you're yelling at someone because you think you're right, you don't actually look right, you usually just look crazy.

Second, always give your man the benefit of the doubt, especially early on. If all else seems well and then something goes wrong, chances are strong that he wasn't actually intending to piss you off. Often a simple, calm explanation of why something rubbed you the wrong way will resolve the problem. Most guys don't actually want you to be angry, so if you present them with a reasonable request to do something differently, often they'll comply and you'll have the whole issue over with in under five minutes.

Next, if something happens that makes you incredibly and suddenly angry, wait it out just a bit before you act on it. Because I went through times when I experienced irrational rage that I later regretted, I now instinctively distrust my anger at first. Generally if I'm feeling angry, I sit on it for about 24 hours and then decide if it was real or only fleeting. Half the time, after a day's time most situations can either be dismissed as silly, not worth the fight, or resolved with a simple, "Hey just FYI what happened yesterday kinda pissed me off, but I'm over it now."  And even if it can't, at least I feel more certain that my anger is justified and can deal with the situation accordingly.

Furthermore, recognize when your emotions are out of control and learn how to deal with them. For me, this often means isolating myself when I know I'm too upset to be around people. I've had close friends call me and invite me out saying that it will cheer me up, and I'll have to explain to them that being around people when I'm in that state will only damage my personal relationships -- basically, if I feel I'm not capable of having a normal, cheerful conversation without exerting an enormous amount of effort, I stay in. Generally speaking, most of our acquaintances are not that empathetic in social situations, and your poor emotional state will translate as bitchiness, a dislike for them, or some other thing that they'll take personally. Better to stay in and cry all you need to alone than go out in a futile attempt to get cheered up that only results in everyone saying, "Geez, what's HER problem?"

Know also who you can trust enough to be around when you're in a state in which you can't control your emotions. I have two close friends who have seen me at my best and worst (just as I've seen them at their best and worst), and when shit hits the fan for me, I know that I can cry and panic and be dramatic and that they'll be there for me and help me through it, just as I've been there for them when they needed me. If you've put enough relationship equity into a friendship, you can do this without any serious damage, especially if you do it responsibly (i.e., in private and at a time when they're able to help you).  Know the people in your life who you can be around when this happens. Maybe it's a family member, a close friend, or maybe it's even your man if you've been together a long time, but it's never going to be a new guy you're dating or someone you're seeing casually.  And in my experience, even if you are dealing with a longterm relationship, your drama is always messier because of your involvement.  If I have a fit of emotional turbulence these days, strangely enough, my ex deals with it far better as my friend than he ever did as my lover. Just play it safe and keep your guy out of it if you can.

And finally, simply resist the urge to make any fight immediate and/or public. Any couple is going to fight during the course of a relationship, and trying to avoid a fight entirely is useless. I am definitely not suggesting that you suck up any and all of some guy's jerky behavior in the name of being chill (and trust me, I've been there too, and it doesn't work out so hot). Just know when it's appropriate to address the issue. For me, I've found that putting off the fight generally makes the outcome far more favorable to me. Forcing a guy to confront an unpleasant issue in the immediate is only going to make him shrink away from it and tune you out, because human beings are inherently contrary. If, on the other hand, your guy asks you what's wrong and you reply, "We'll talk about it later," you're going to have his undivided attention. The most apologetic, conciliatory state I ever got out of a guy came when he texted me trying to work something out and I replied, "I'm sorry, I'm still too angry to discuss this yet." Also effective, when I lived with a boyfriend, was stating why I was angry, then leaving the house for the evening and refusing to answer my phone. None of these were exactly pleasant experiences, but they sure beat the times that I yelled at a guy, expecting an apology, only to find him yelling right back and eventually shutting me out... and then being called crazy.

So don't get called crazy. Most guys --at least those with self-respect -- will run away at the first signs of crazy, and will warn all their friends about it too. Trust me, as difficult as it may seem at first, being told one night "You're a pretty chill girl" makes it totally worth it to tell those irrational emotions to cool down and take a backseat to your end goals.

Art, Artifice, Escapism, Fantasy

Arden: Why do we fall in love with people, Helena?
Helena: Because when we see someone we make up a story about them, and we want to live in that story.

I've never really understood the word "fake" as an insult.  "Disingenuous," "dishonest," "hypocritical," and "insincere" -- sure, those are bad qualities that are to be avoided. But "fake," as in "artificial," would seem to imply that the opposing, desirable quality would be whatever is completely and totally natural. And while "natural" and "desirable" sometimes cross over in the Venn diagram, they don't line up consistently. Think about it: a burp is natural, but it's not desirable.

When I was a very young kid, there was a time that my family and I went to Disney World together and when we got to the Small World ride, there was no line. So we climbed in the boat, and at my insistence, stayed on the ride about ten times in a row. (My poor parents. I ought to buy them a belated drink for putting up with that one.) I loved Small World and I used to fantasize about climbing off the boat and hanging out with the animatronics dolls for the rest of my life, never having to go to school again, just staying and playing all day with all these kids who seemed so cool and hung out with tigers and hippos. Of course I was bright enough to know that they were just robotic dolls, but that didn't matter -- I wanted to live in that story.

I still have a weakness for artifice. So much of what we fantasize about today is not actually achievable, but through artifice, we can, for a moment, live in the story. I think this is why I love Las Vegas so much -- I'll never be able to walk the streets of an ancient Roman marketplace, but I can visit Caesar's Palace and pretend for a few minutes that I am. A few months ago my colleague Helena and I took a mini-vacation to Atlantic City, and one hotel had a facade that was decorated with signs for fake western storefronts -- saloons, mining supplies, brothels, horse tack, etc. For a moment I paused and tried to imagine the kinds of characters who would walk around such a place. The image was so much more interesting than the actual landscape of Jersey shore kids and sad retirees before me.

We all love fantasy to some degree. We all invite it into our lives through different veins -- Hollywood movies, novels, online rpgs, and even fashion, music, and art are all forms of fantastic escapism. There are so many stories out there in the collective unconscious that are far more interesting than our daily pedestrian lives but which we will never fully be able to live out.

So what does this have to do with seduction?

Every once in a while we encounter a person who is able to bring a story to life, a story we want to live in. And it is the furthest thing from the natural state they were born into -- it would be entirely fake BUT for the level to which they have committed to it. Because of their commitment, their story becomes so close to truth that we are able to momentarily suspend our reality and live in the world that they have created. And often it is a beautiful world, a world so much more interesting and compelling than the one that we actually have to function within on a daily basis.

To an extent, this is what was so compelling to me about BDSM. No one is actually born dominant or submissive (though it could be argued that through nature or nurture some of us tend toward being more reticent and some toward being more aggressive, but that only explains an affinity for certain roles, not a birthright to them), but through the players' commitment to their respective roles, we are able to believe them for a moment. We are able to fear or crave as the story dictates. Of course, I pretty much ruined BDSM for myself by becoming a pro-Domme for three years and exposing the whole fantasy to light. Metaphorically speaking, I stepped off the Small World boat, walked up to an animatronics doll, and took it apart to see how it worked. And now I'm stuck trying to find again the fantasy that inspired me in the first place. Recently I was trying to find the words for it, and what I ended up saying was, "It's not all about the whips and the ropes and the accoutrements... it's about the feeling you get when there is someone you can't say no to." The truth is that we can, of course, say no to anyone whenever we feel like it, but when the relationship is steeped in such commitment, the fake becomes real and the fantasy becomes truth.

A few entries ago I wrote a profile on my friend Kayvon and the world he has created around himself. As an example of commitment to artifice, he and I were having a discussion recently about how he wants to recreate the world of a royal court. For a while, whenever the bunch of us went out, a friend of ours would carry a black fringed umbrella over Kayvon while he walked down the street. His girlfriend would carry a feathered fan to cool him off. In today's world, there are no societal conventions like this one, but if everyone's committed to it, how "fake" can it be?

For me, at least lately, the world of rock and roll is often the perfect incarnation of artifice and reality. Jay Gordon (my high school locker pin-up) wasn't born with silver nail polish and eyeliner -- no rockstar ever is, but through their belief in a greater image and identity, they create something that's more interesting than most of the people we meet in our everyday lives. What's great about it though is that it's become such a widespread culture that the line between fantasy and reality becomes a blur -- it's a dream, but the dream is real.

And me? I am a complete and total construction of my own making. I wasn't born wearing red lipstick and expensive lingerie and touting myself as a seduction guru, but over the years I have committed to it thoroughly, and today, it's what I am. No man today can ever hope to be with Cleopatra, or with Marilyn Monroe, or with Madame Recamier, but hopefully through the art of my artifice, I can hope to bring a little bit of that spark back to life.

Don't aspire to what you see in reality. Most of the time, reality is boring and too easy. Strive to be someone's fantasy, someone through whom they can escape the doldrums of everyday life. I believe in authenticity, but sometimes I believe authenticity would be better defined as "consistency." Commit to the story you are bringing to life. Take your inner passions, the most vivid fantasies of your innermost authentic self, and commit to them so hard that they become real. Create something for the rest of us to believe in.

And then the next time someone calls you "fake," you can smile and say, "You're welcome."