The Game of Laugh and Lie Down
--a Sexa Rubelucia piece--
8/17/09

I’m sure everyone reading this is aware of the tragic shooting that occurred on August 4^th.  George Sodini was a heterosexual man who kept chillingly misogynistic diaries, whose crime, by his own admission, was motivated by woman-hating psychosexual urges, and whose victims were women.  A great deal of feminist analysis, from every kind of source, has sprung up in the wake of this horror.  Much of it is eloquent, moving, and necessary.  In fact, I will include fairly few of my own thoughts on the tragedy, as anything I could say has been said here, here, and here.

    However, much of this analysis has focused in on Sodini’s association with pick-up artist communities, literature and rhetoric.  Sodini, it turns out, had a pre-existing connection with—at least a small piece of—the pick up community and its ideas.  Furthermore, tactless low-end pick-up bloggers such as “Roissy in DC” have furthered this connection by appropriating Sodini as a key point in the argument as to the necessity of pick-up.  Many feminist bloggers are outraged at these men’s responses to the tragedy, and rightly so.  The resulting, ongoing debate has made the incident something of a spotlight, or perhaps a metaphorical overturning of a rock: it has brought into focus and into greater volume and importance the internet philosophical war between feminists and pick-up artists.

    The feminist claim is this: Sodini’s crime exposes and demonstrates precisely what is terribly, terribly wrong with pick-up and why it should be reviled and eradicated; namely, the fanning of men’s misogynistic rage, the figuration of women as nothing but sexual conquest-objects, and the further figuration of those conquest-objects as something to which men are entitled.  Various feminist authors, in subtle or blatant words, figure pick-up as a type of force.  Their arguments, cleverly and not a little chillingly, bring together the two most common meanings of force: the literal noun, meaning physical violence, and its figurative verb relation, meaning ‘to cause someone to do something that they do not wish to do.’  Pick-up is outwardly about the second definition: women, it seems to be proclaiming, say they do not want to sleep with you, but you can learn tricks to make them sleep with you anyway.  Feminist critics conclude that this figurative verb “force” is a microcosm of, and eventually a slippery slope toward, the literal noun “force.”  If men are told, in pick-up communities, that they can learn verbal and mental tricks to get women who do not want to sleep with them to sleep with them, if they are promised this outcome, and then follow all the rules but do not get it, they have already been told they are allowed to use one type of force to get women to sleep with them, so they will turn the more deadly and literal kind of force, believing to have permission and entitlement to it. 

 
To my knowledge, no-one has yet argued that the countless books
aimed at women about how to trick men into marrying you
are likely to make women into more violent people.

    Sodini proves, according to these theories, that pick-up is a thing driven by and resulting in rage.  Women are targets, things.  They are either had or not had, their function and existence ends in sex or not sex.  Pick-up, goes the argument, elevates and validates this conception of women.  If scheming to get women into bed is systematized, if exclusively male communities form around it, then the idea of woman as thing-to-be-gotten-by-force is given strength and prevalence and the years and hard work of arguments against it are more efficiently silenced.

    Pick-up is most commonly recognized from Neil Strauss’s 2005 exposé The Game, which is as famous for its feminist-decried misogyny as for it is for its promise to teach nerdy, unlucky male losers how to meet, seduce, and fuck beautiful women.  The Game, however, as is made clear by the wide-ranging blogs, publications, and public figures cited as examples in the arguments against pick-up, is just the beginning.  Pick-up is the idea that there is a game, there is a set of skills clear and accessible as flashcards, that will allow you to seduce anyone you want, and have them, or not, for as long as you desire.

    But pick-up is a microcosm here, an indicator.  The real issue is to somehow arrive at a working definition, an understanding, of male sexuality, of male desire for women, which can be not just forgiven but celebrated by feminism and feminists. We at 1585 put a lot of blame on feminists, but perhaps their (or, “our,” as I include myself in the category despite various ideological difference with certain sources) occasional alarmism must be admitted to have some valid basis.  Men certainly have as much, if not arguably more, to fear physically from the world, but they do not fear it specifically at the hands of men.  While their gender has violence built into it and therefore the general threat of violence toward them is greater (most particularly during adolescence), there is no instance of violence against men that happens because they are male, and if they are the victims of violent crime, no-one says “well, as a man, you should protect yourself better.”

    Due to having something of a charmed life, I travel quite a lot.  I think I’m probably less aware of and keyed into inequalities between myself and men than most feminists are, but when these things really hit me hard is when I’m talking to a guy about travel.  A guy will tell a story about sleeping outside on the street, alone, because youth hostels were full, or hitchhiking in a foreign country, or getting unbelievably drunk/high and walking around a strange city all night with no idea where he was, fucked-up out of his mind, and this sense of injustice just boils up, and, for all my post-feminist protestations that everyone is differently and equally oppressed by gender structures, I say, every time, “Wow, it must be nice to be a man.”

    Fuck, I wish I could do these things.  I would love for “I will just stay up and wander the streets all night” to be a viable travel option.  While it is more so for me than for many other women because I’m six feet tall and by no means delicate, it still would be derided as idiocy and something close to self-harm.  I would absolutely love to hitchhike across unknown countries, I would love to be able to get as fucked-up as I want without first checking that there’s someone there who I know and trust and who will protect me if necessary.  Built into women’s very social code and world knowledge is that idea that we will be the victims of violence because we are women.  We start from this assumption, and learn behaviors to prevent it.  We consider when not if.

    Not only that, but we expect violence against us to be sexual.  I’ve written elsewhere that violence is built into heterosexual sex.  While the positive side of this fact is that we can accept our more violent or problematic sexual fantasies as natural and to be expected, the negative flipside is perhaps a lot more important.  Violence is built into sex and therefore on some level all male desire for women is a violent action.  Think about it too long and it’s difficult not to understand rape as proceeding naturally from the very truth of male heterosexual desire.  There’s something violent, invasive, taking, conquering about the sexual act, no matter how kindly or consensually executed.  Therefore, any man who gets used to this, as any sexually active male must, gets in some way desensitized to the idea of raping someone.  No wonder feminists, even the most reasonable, brilliant, and sex-positive, are on their guard; are wary and grudging of male sexuality.  Women’s sexuality is in part defined by the fear of violence; we—that is our society, our collective unconscious—have still not let go of the ingrained idea that rape is a punishment for sexual misbehavior on the part of a woman.

    So of course feminists seek to make male sexuality less aggressive, to water it down and remove as much action, as much conquering impulse from it as possible.  The goal of finally, in a privileged and enlightened age, divorcing heterosexual male sex entirely from the exertion of force upon a woman is a good one.  It’s just that I’m not sure it’s possible.

    What’s left, what’s so far been proposed, isn’t viable.  Looking for a solution to the basically ugly nature of sexuality and sexual desire, we have defined the very immutable nature of sex as its problem, its illness.  What’s left is nothing.  Expecting anyone to be attracted to anyone without violence as some sort of baseline to the interaction is like expecting to cure food shortages by teaching people not to feel hungry.  Men feel castrated by women (I’m not condoning this response; it’s merely a fact) because they have been told that the instinctual, innate way that they experience sex and sexual desire is not only wrong but essentially marks them as a rapist.

    This analysis relates to pick-up because pick-up is male sexual desire and conquest distilled, stood up on stage with a big block-lettered sign and the spotlight right on it as hot as it can go.  Due to the extraordinarily understandable concerns detailed above, women in liberal, progressive environments find sexuality inoffensive only when it is hidden. Sex is supposed to seem like an accident.  Intention is itself a kind of aggression, a kind of violence; passivity is the literal antonym for aggression, so we want men passive.  We imagine that sex can just happen, naturally, with no-one intending or planning anything.  “Plan” relates to attack, “try” relates to force.  Men planning or trying to have sex is a hairsbreadth away, by linguistic logic, from the use of physical force, from physical attack.

"Do her, or do her not. There is no try."

    In the 90s, with the earth-scorching advances of P.C. and women’s studies, men, at least men in progressive, academic and urban environments, had to repress their natural impulses and revise their tactics not just in order to get laid but in order not to be publicly branded rapists.  We’ve calmed down a lot since then so it’s easy to forget the absolute, command-performance revolution in public male sexuality that took place.  Men had to make their sexuality look accidental, look apologetic.  The re-popularized figure of the sensitive, suicidal boy was the solution to an anti-sexual male ideal.  If a man wasn’t all that interested in living, he certainly couldn’t be interested in fucking.  The problem is that sexuality, in its very nature and definition, its very bloodstream-insistence, is anything but accidental or passive.

    Today we’re in the throes of a backlash, as inevitably follows a revolution.  In our hipster age, misogyny has snuck back into mainstream popularity under the cloak of irony.  Most hipster irony is an excuse to like things we want to like anyway, but were previously too embarrassed by.  Irony is a forcefield against cool.  You can like anything ironically, so star trek nerds get to be cool, and supposedly sensitive guys get to say “bro” every third word and behave like 1950s husbands.  Any revolution will cause counter-revolutions.

    Do I think misogyny is on the rise?  No.  I think it’s where it’s been for about the last five or ten years, and better than it was at any point before that. I agree that the level to which people are allowed to say horrible, horrible things about Hillary Clinton related specifically to her being a woman is terrible, and I think the way her campaign was mismanaged and figured in the media has a lot to do with ingrained misogyny (including, as much as anything, the way women themselves have internalized misogyny).  But on the other hand, although we didn’t have a female presidential candidate, we came pretty damn close.  I think feminism is successful right now in a way it never has been before and in a way that would make our equal-rights foremothers amazed and proud.  I think because of feminism’s success, a new light is being shone on pre-existing misogyny.  I don’t think it’s that there’s necessarily more of it; it’s that a team’s complaints get louder when they know they’re losing.  Most institutions get showier as they die off, and I think misogyny is doing exactly that.  We are astounded by and aware of it because it isn’t the norm, because it isn’t permitted.  The presence of backlash shows that the revolution, the thing to which the backlash responds, had an impact.

    I don’t know enough about pick-up to write anything authoritative about it, which is why I am focusing on these more general ideas of male sexuality and misogyny.  But I do know something about interest-based communities.  Female pick-up artist, expert and instructor Arden Leigh, newly a member of our Sexy Genius Consortium, compared it to the BDSM community: there are a whole lot of asshole men in horrible, cheap leather pirate outfits carrying the most useless floggers imaginable and bragging about how they sent their “slave” to the hospital.  There are a whole lot of idiotic women-hating “bros” pretending to be submissives because they think that’s how to get a hot woman in a corset to let them touch her asshole (it’s not; she won’t).  There are a whole lot of pathetic women buying some thigh-highs at Victoria’s secret and calling themselves “dommes” but refusing to learn any craft or skill and getting squeamish when they see any actual BDSM put into practice.  But these types and many others, the douchebags, the insufferable cases, don’t define BDSM.  Plenty of people not familiar with the BDSM world call it misogynistic and dangerous, but the good, significant people inside the community know that it isn’t.  If you aren’t inside something yourself, the easiest thing to see from the outside is the bad stuff, as the jerks tend to be louder and more eager to share their “secrets” with the outside world.

    Of course those of us who aren’t ourselves involved in a particular closed community have to judge that community by the effect it has on the larger world, on the “mainstream” society with which it interacts.  Here, feminists are more than happy to bring out examples.  Many of the women writing disparagingly about pick-up point to all the times they’ve been hit on in insulting and obnoxious ways with techniques that they could easily recognize from The Game.  To that I have to say: so, really, really, you think if pick-up had never been named and codified, you wouldn’t ever be hit on in insulting and obnoxious ways?  Like feminism, I think there’s good pick-up and bad pick-up and, again like feminism, I think, in the most useful possible understanding, good pick-up is the truthful representation and bad pick-up is people unclear on the concept executing their misinterpretation.

    Bad pick-up, the openly misogynist outposts of pick-up on the internet, the male-rights activism sites, the blogs such as Roissy’s, remind me of nothing more than Pro-Ana communities on livejournal. (And yes, I enjoy making that comparison partly to imagine the reactions of the men implicated in it).  Pro-Ana livejournals have lost popularity in recent years, but in their heyday in the early 2000s, they were the internet’s great backlash against body-positivism, and at the same time a place where, quite simply, women could do exactly what they were told wasn’t allowed (i.e., actually admit that they want to be thin).  In some ways—another unlikely comparison—both these internet cesspools share something with the spirit of punk rock.  They are the furthest “it’s not allowed” of gender stereotypes.  Political correctness, gender studies, equal gender rights, body-positive feminism, body-image awareness, all of these, while fantastically beneficial and inarguably necessary things, become a bit of a societal Mom Voice.  Where past generations had, and more conservative echelons of society have, etiquette and social mores against which punk and similar movements rebelled, in a liberal, progressive, academic environment where things like punk are already canonized, people can only rebel against the latest revolution.  Pro-misogyny sites are as idiotic as pro-eating disorder sites, but in that idiocy they are in some sick way liberating for their members.  On some level even a thirteen-year-old girl isn’t dumb; she knows starvation will kill her and she knows throwing up isn’t a sustainable way to maintain her weight.  On some level, men know that not only is misogyny wrong, it’s never going to do them any good.  The mainstream world is not going to fall in line and say “back to the kitchen and out of the polling booths for those women!”  In the same way, when our parents told us not to do obviously idiotic things—like drink and drive, like stay out until five on a school night—we got a thrill, a heady sense of self-assertion, from doing that stupid thing anyway.

 
Both communities are also prone to misspelling key terms, like how “anorexia”
actually has an “o” in it, and how “vajflapping” should clearly be spelled with a “g.”

    Women in Pro-Ana communities didn’t need to be policed by body-positive bloggers; they needed, for the most part, to be hospitalized.  Similarly, men on pro-misogyny sites don’t need to be told off and reformed by feminist critics, they need therapy, and a lot of it, and in some cases—like Sodini’s—hospitalization and incarceration for dangerous mental illness.  The next step is for someone to say “but misogynist men are actively perpetrating or encouraging the perpetration of violence against women whereas women in Pro-Ana communities are victims of the media.”  Most of the really bad Pro-Ana communities have been taken down, but anyone who remembers them might see where this argument doesn’t quite hold water.  There were homepages filled with text screaming commands such as NO FATTIES WITH BMIS OVER 20 YOU DISGUSTING PIGS GET THE FUCK OUT (for reference, a woman who stands 5’5” and weighs 120 pounds has a BMI of 20. Even Roissy has kinder standards for BMI than did these girls).  Pro-Ana communities were locked; members would have to submit application forms and photos to be accepted (allowed to post and leave comments).  When they applied, their applications, particularly the photos, would be posted and then torn apart by the existing members. Comments generally tended toward the FAT FAT FAT FAT FATTY WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE WHY DON’T YOU GO ACTUALLY TRY TO LOSE SOME WEIGHT AND THEN MAYBE WE’LL CONSIDER YOU.  Other posts involved the members posting pictures of girls they knew (girls who weren’t a part of the community and, one would hope, had no interest in it), and letting other members scream about how fat those girls were, often linking back to that girl’s personal livejournal, so that random members of the Pro-Ana community could go torment her over there.  It’s true that men have a greater capacity to perpetrate physical violence against women, but the psychological violence ingrained from a startlingly young age in women towards other women is in its own way just as debilitating. Yes, women are far less likely to rape and kill other women.  But women torment other women into every kind of self-harm, many of which are lethal and not a few of which can prove to be fatal.  Misogyny reaches everyone in our society, and both genders manifest this permeation through some type of violence. 

    Which brings me back to why pick-up attracts misogynists.  Pick-up may attract misogynists, but not because it has misogyny built into its ideas.  In fact, the preponderance of misogynists involved in or attempting to study pick-up may be proof that these men are dying out.  Misogynists, I would reason, are attracted to pick-up because they can’t get laid.  And the reason they can’t get laid is that more and more and more women aren’t standing for their shit anymore.  Men who hate women, who think of women as spoiled children, as mindless objects, meet with a stunning lack of success.  If these men were successful in their interactions with women, they wouldn’t have to form and/or gravitate toward pick-up communities.

    I’m certainly not saying the answer is that violence would go away if misogynists could just get laid more.  Sex crimes are among the most disgusting things of which humans are capable.  But we won’t stop them by going after the pick-up community.  The bad elements of this community are merely contained for the moment inside a loose and poorly articulated form.  The concept of “pick-up” is fairly new (though seduction is older than old), and rape is an ancient crime (though, sadly, only relatively recently acknowledged as crime or prosecuted to any degree).  Boys at my high school were raping girls at house parties long before The Game was published.  They’d never heard of pick-up nor would they have needed it if they had.  And there’s another issue that makes this “pick-up leads to rape” analysis problematic.  Male sexual entitlement does in fact lead to rape, but not being able to get laid is far from the only thing that leads to sexual entitlement, and rage concerning it, in men.  Nevertheless the figurations of the Sodini crime are in many ways a sexualized, grown-up echo of the analyses popular after the Columbine murders: Being a loser makes you evil.  Having no friends makes you a murderer.  Having no sex makes you a murderer.

    No.  Being mentally unstable makes you a murderer.  Being mentally unstable specifically regarding sex makes you a rapist.  I read an amazing blog recently discussing how so many rape cases are dismissed via the “but he could have had any woman he wanted” argument: “That athlete/rockstar couldn’t have raped this woman who says he did; he could have any woman he wanted.”  We may be able to condemn pick-up artists by saying men frustrated by their inability to get sex will turn to the use of force and that therefore men should not be taught how to get sex, because if they fail at executing these strategies and don’t get laid, they’ll turn to violence.  However, this argument can all too easily be turned in the opposite direction and made to function as a support of the “he could have had any woman he wanted” defense.  Let me be clear, I am also not saying that the more successful men are with women, the more likely they are to be rapists.  We should fault neither excess nor lack, as both of these inherently blame the victim.

    I think we should fault the mutual hatred of each gender for the other embedded in our culture.  I think we should fault the media’s fanning of the flames of this resentment, as though it is some funny, cute battle of the sexes when it in fact encourages women to hate men for wanting sex and men to hate women for not giving it up, and I think we should fault ourselves for never doing quite enough to detach our vernacular, our thoughts, our relationships, our lives and our choices from these monstrously unfunny jokes that are heaped on us in every direction each day.  I think these phenomena are to blame in part, perhaps, for violent gender-and-sex-motivated tragedies but I can’t say so definitively, and I don’t have a solution.  Believe me, I would tell you if I did.  If I had a solution to the staggering epidemic of violence against women that has pervaded our society since roughly the beginning of time, I would never publish an essay saying anything beside that solution, I would quit my job and tattoo it on my body, I would write thousand page books repeating the text of this solution in red ink.  But I don’t have one.  And neither does any blogger on the internet.

    Sexual desire is overwhelming.  The desire to fuck is so strong that, no matter the person or the circumstance, its frustration will always call up rage. Both sexual desire and sex itself are dangerous because rage isn’t just related to them by association, but is part of the formal construction of the thing.  Pick-up, as already stated, is the opposite of the passive, and therefore inoffensive, approach to male sexuality that has been submitted as the solution to separating sex and rage.  However, if this is the reason pick-up must be condemned, then sexuality itself, any real sexual desire, has to be tarred with the same brush, and any claims of sex-positivism will not hold water.

    I can certainly say that there are some leaders, and sections, of the pick-up community that sicken me, and that seem to be just as creepy as advertised.  These men get the women they deserve, and in many ways women who fall for bad pick-up artists deserve what they get.  Reading articles depicting the approaches of the sleazier subsets of pick-up, I was astounded again and again that the women didn’t just walk away after their opening line (or, in many cases, halfway through it).  I don’t at all understand how the approaches detailed in many of these articles are on a different level than “Are you a natural redhead, baby?  Hey, come back!”, which is said to me on the street three or four times a day, and which has never even moved me to look in the direction of the man saying it, let alone give him my number or, um, “vaj.”

    But I find the concept itself, and its correct practice, which I’ve definitely seen in action, to be not only blameless but actively positive.  I think one thing to be mourned in our post-PC, post-feminist culture, is the loss of the self-conscious war between the sexes; the good, enjoyable kind; the real game.  I understand that our ideas of the 18^th and 19^th centuries were invented by movies and books and that even the most realistic of art is by definition a fantasy.  But there is at least an idea, as much as it may be fantasy, that in past centuries, in other cultures, seduction was an art, a game played to perfection and with full awareness, by both men and women.  I think our awareness of gender politics has in some ways robbed us of the ability to play such games and benefit from them.  We are too worried that we are objectifying someone, that we are manipulating them.  The concept of authenticity on an interpersonal level has been politicized to such a degree that we feel guilty at any kind of performance.  Any performativity as it relates to sex and gender has been the topic of a million or so cultural-studies dissertations, and in this scrutiny has lost its easy function.  The game of high artifice, the performance of compelling desire is instantly turned to the subject of a gender-studies paper.  Our minds perform this analysis, this translation, all too readily.  PC was a call for greater self-consciousness; it said “look at the things your actions, your thoughts, say that you aren’t even aware of—bigotry is built into your every action.”  To “win” at PC, to be our secular version of ‘virtuous’ means to be strenuously authentic all the time but at the same time to be overly self-conscious and constantly self-correcting.  Women cannot engage in seduction for fear of objectifying themselves, and men cannot engage in seduction for fear of being equated with rapists.  We are told that the ideal pre-sexual (i.e., flirtation leading to sex) interaction between a man and a woman is one devoid of any artifice, in which they just talk, and share common interests, and see each other as nothing more and nothing less than people, and everything is simple, and everything is honest, and everything is out on the table, and no “game” is “played,” because sex is serious business, and people are not things with which to be played.

    It’s inoffensive, but it’s also uninteresting.  There is a certain kind of feminism that seems to say that sexual honesty, “good sex,”—not “good” meaning enjoyable but rather politically unobjectionable—must be stripped of any adornment.  Everyone has an orgasm, everyone is honest that all they wanted was an orgasm.  But sex isn’t just about physical pleasure, and enjoying sex—yes, especially for women—is rarely just about “touch the correct body parts and be honest with me.”  We all want to believe we want that, for some reason, but few of us do.  Sex is an emotional and intellectual thing.  It’s strange and complex and we want it to be a game.  Seduction isn’t there to belittle women—it’s there to make sex more interesting, and women can practice it, too.  While formal seduction is a throwback to a time when women were in general extremely oppressed, the enjoyment and practice of seduction, of intricate, manipulative games involving sex and sexual intrigue was one of the few ways in which women could and did assert autonomy.

    One of the worst problems is that this ban on seduction primarily applies to people in academic environments; the highly liberal and highly educated.  But seduction is the birthright of intellectuals!  It was invented by intellectuals and practiced by them almost exclusively.  Obviously it’s a function of privilege, but so is higher education.  It was when we lost the art of seduction as a popular concept that the idea of the nerd gained ground.  You can in fact track the two as opposite movements: the idea of the intellectual man or woman as the person who isn’t attractive, who doesn’t like sex, who can’t get laid would baffle our ancestor-intellectuals and likely make them laugh their heads off at us.  Byron, as a male poet, or Lou Andreas-Salomé, as a female philosopher, would today be expected to be nerds, to dress poorly and not know how to talk to the opposite sex.  The intellectual lost power in the sexual arena when sex became something that was supposed to just happen, when the interest in seduction lessened and sex gained by game playing and scheming was devalued as “dishonest” and “mean.”

    When sex is no longer the purview of the smartest person in the room, the person whose intellectual capability allows them to discern other people’s desires and artfully transform him or herself according to those desires, it becomes both male-dominated and dangerous.  The fall of the seducer is the rise of the jock.  If intellect or seductive artistry does not prove who gets to have the most sex, we turn to brute force or physical prowess as an indicator.  When seduction is eliminated, women lose all possible sexual autonomy, and can only sit around with whatever aesthetic gifts their DNA granted them, hoping to be noticed.  Seduction was invented by intellectuals in part to rid sex of its inherent violence.  Intricate seductive games—including many literary forms—were invented by courtiers desperate to prove their social status.  To show themselves sophisticated, they elevated even sexual desire to an art.  And men discovered that women were a whole hell of a lot more interested in fucking if it had to do with thinking and made them feel like they had a choice.  By making sex an intellectual pursuit, the inherent rage of sex is calmed.  This is not to say its basic nature changes, but merely that intellect can move us away from our visceral emotions.  Donne made the same point about grief, writing that “he tames it, who fetters it in verse.”  Seduction calms our visceral, violent urges because it must be considered coldly and calmly in order to be done well.  When seduction is an intellectual exercise, the violence inherent in sexual desire becomes more distant, and is kept out of all but the actual activity. 

    If intellect is the opposite of sex, however, then thoughtless brute force is sex’s synonym.  Stupidity is lionized as synonymous with honesty, intellect is seen as anti-sexual, and young women, even smart women, flock to frat houses for initial sexual experiences that dance right along the border of what can rightly be called rape, because that’s what sex is supposed to be.  When we take the art, the thought, the game, out of sex, we relegate it to the realm of physical force.  Seduction, in this way, is the opposite of violence, and equating smart with sexy is therefore as important as it is hot.

THE END
of
The Game of Laugh and Lie Down...

...but Sexa Rubelucia will return
in
Rubelucia Does Thanksgiving

Back to the Top

Back to the Homepage