Browsing the internet, you could easily get the impression that talking to girls was somehow equivalent to Brain surgery or Rocket science.

But now, it seems that Alec Greven, a 9-year-old kid from Castle Rock, Colorado, has managed to cut through the accumulated crap of wacky theories and spaced-out Love gurus, by releasing his own book of home-spun wisdom entitled “How to Talk to Girls“.

Alec Claims that he got the idea for his book after he “saw a lot of boys that had trouble talking to girls”.

Now, you might laugh, but the book does in fact contain some excellent advice. In fact, the advice is so good that young Alec has been doing the celebrity circuit; appearing on “The Early Show” and being interviewed by Ellen Degeneres and Meredith Viera. Even 20th Century Fox were impressed, and have since optioned the film rights to this future best seller.

So, for anyone that thinks they have trouble talking to girls, here’s what Alec recommends:

Many boys get crushes on girls. But it can be very hard to get a girl to like you. Sometimes it takes years!

Whatever happens, just don’t act desperate. Girls don’t like desperate boys.

Many boys who have crushes don’t know how to act around a girl. Some boys tease girls they like and are mean to them. Some boys say silly things to girls and act goofy. Some boys think they are acting cool by showing off.

This is not a good approach.

Make sure you have good friends who won’t try to take the girl you like.

Finally, you have to be able to get over a crush if it doesn’t work out. A crush is like a love disease. It can drive you mad.

Try not to let it get you down.

The right thing to do when you have a crush is:

• Never show off too much
• Don’t be silly and goofy
• Control your hyperness (cut down on sugar if you need to)

Other hints and tips include:

• Comb your hair and don’t wear sweats
• Don’t be the class clown
• Go easy on the compliments to avoid looking desperate
• … and be wary of “pretty girls.”

But, what’s the best way to approach a girl?

Alec recommends:

Keep it to a simple “Hi”.

If I say “Hi” and you say “Hi” back, we’re probably off to a good start.

So, with the basics out of the way, and obviously leaving the door open for a further best seller in a couple of years time, Alec comments that Dating (which he defines as going out to dinner without your parents).

[...] is for “kind of old” people, who are 15 or 16.

Posted by Jonathan as Art & Literature, Reviews at 2:27 AM GMT

No Comments »

Wedding Crashers is a film with a preposterous plot and a completely unbelievable ending, but that doesn’t stop it being a very funny movie.

And, of course, in real life nobody in their right mind would bother to go to all the trouble of memorising such a long and complicated list of rules and regulations. The full list, however, is hilarious, and amongst the rules there are certainly one or two interesting seduction hints and tips that you might find useful. So, for your amusement (and possible education), here is the list of rules for crashing a wedding:-

Rule #1: Never leave a fellow Crasher behind. Crashers take care of their own.
Rule #2: Never use your real name.
Rule #3: Never confess.
Rule #4: No one goes home alone.
Rule #5: Never let a girl get between you and a fellow Crasher.
Rule #6: Do not sit in the corner and sulk. It draws attention to you in a negative way. Draw attention to yourself, but on your own terms.
Rule #7: Blend in by standing out.
Rule #8: Be the life of the party.
Rule #9: Whatever it takes to get in, get in.
Rule #10: Invitations are for pussies.
Rule #11: Sensitive is good.
Rule #12: Of course you dream of one day having children.
Rule #13: Bridesmaids are desperate – console them.
Rule #14: You’re a distant relative of a dead cousin.
Rule #15: Fight the urge to tell the truth.
Rule #16: Always have an up-to-date family tree.
Rule #17: Every female wedding guest deserves a wedding night.
Rule #18: You love animals and children.
Rule #19: Toast in the native language if you know the native language and have practised the toast. Do not wing it.
Rule #20: Always have an early “appointment” the next morning.
Rule #21: Make sure she’s 18.
Rule #22: You have a wedding and a reception to seal the deal – Period – No overtime.
Rule #23: There’s nothing wrong with having seconds. Provided there are enough women to go around.
Rule #24: If you get outted, leave calmly. Do not run.
Rule #25: You understand she heard that, but that’s not what you meant.
Rule #26: Of course you love her.
Rule #27: Don’t over-drink. The machinery must work in order to close.
Rule #28: Make sure there’s an open bar.
Rule #29: Always be a team player. Everyone needs a little help now and again.
Rule #30: You’re from out of town. ALWAYS.
Rule #31: Girls in hats tend to be proper and rarely give it up.
Rule #32: Don’t commit to a relative unless you’re absolutely sure that they have a pulse.
Rule #33: Never go back to your place.
Rule #34: Be gone by sunrise.
Rule #35: Breakfast is for closers.
Rule #36: 3 or 4 months to Wedding crash – Funerals are year round.
Rule #37: At the reception, one hard drink or two beers max. A drunken Crasher is a sloppy Crasher.
Rule #38: Stay clear of the wedding planner. They may recognize you and start to wonder.
Rule #39: Your favourite movie is “The English Patient”.
Rule #40: No “chicken dancing” – no exceptions.
Rule #41: Never hit on the bride! It’s a one-way ticket to the pavement.
Rule #42: The way to a women’s bed is through the dance floor.
Rule #43: Dance with old folks and the kids. The girls will think you’re “sweet”.
Rule #44: If there is a cash bar, bring your fake war medals. You’ll never have to buy a drink.
Rule #45: You forgot your invitation in your rush to get to the church.
Rule #46: At the service, sit in the fifth row. It’s close enough to the wedding party to seem like you’re an invited guest. Never sit in the back. The back row just smells like Crashing.
Rule #47: If two rival Crashers pick the same girl, the Crasher with the least seniority will respectfully yield.
Rule #48: Always remember your fake name!
Rule #49: The Rules of Wedding Crashing are sacred. Don’t sully them by “improvising”.
Rule #50: When your Crash partner fails, you fail. No man is an island…

Posted by Jonathan as Art & Literature, humour at 11:33 PM GMT

No Comments »

When you first arrange to meet a girl you’ve picked up, you might decide to go to the cinema and watch a movie together. However, according to new research, you could be wise to avoid going to see a romantic comedy.

Rom-coms have been blamed by relationship experts at Heriot Watt University in Edinburgh for promoting unrealistic expectations when it comes to love, since they often promote a warped sense of the “perfect” relationship within society.

Researchers noted the films contain improbable plots, unlikely happy endings and false philosophies. They also oversimplified the process of falling in love and wrongly gave the impression that love could and should be achieved without any effort.

Psychologist Dr Bjarne Holmes and his team spent a year analysing 40 top box office rom-coms released between 1995 and 2005, including “You’ve Got Mail“, “The Wedding Planner“, “Maid in Manhattan” and “While You Were Sleeping“; from which they identified common themes that they believed were unrealistic, such as the idea of “the one” soul mate who we are all pre-destined to meet and that they should instinctively know us so well they can “almost read our minds”.

Using this information, they surveyed hundreds of people with a questionnaire which asked respondents to describe their beliefs and expectations when it came to relationships.

The researchers found that those respondents who watched romantic comedies often failed to communicate effectively with their partners, and frequently held the view that if someone is meant to be with you, they should know what you want without you needing to tell them. They were also more likely to believe that perfect relationships happen instantly, and were less likely to believe that couples needed to work at relationships.

Dr Holmes, who led the research, said:

Marriage counsellors often see couples who believe that sex should always be perfect, and if someone is meant to be with you then they will know what you want without you needing to communicate it.

We now have some emerging evidence that suggests popular media play a role in perpetuating these ideas in people’s minds.

The problem is that while most of us know that the idea of a perfect relationship is unrealistic, some of us are still more influenced by media portrayals than we realise.

In a follow-up experiment, the researchers discovered that watching just one romantic comedy is enough to sway people’s attitudes towards romantic love – The Psychologists had 100 student volunteers watch the 2001 romantic comedy “Serendipity” (starring Kate Beckinsale and John Cusack) whilst a further 100 watched a David Lynch drama – Following the viewings, students who watched “Serendipity” were found to be more likely to believe in fate and destiny.

Dr Holmes emphasized:

We are not being killjoys – we are not saying that people shouldn’t watch these movies. But we are saying that it would be helpful if people were more aware and more critical of the messages in these films.

We all want to be successful in our relationships. We want to be the special one and meet the special one. Unfortunately people tend to believe the Hollywood idea of a perfect relationship.

That is just unrealistic. People feel if their relationship is not like a Hollywood film then it is not any good.

Investing time and energy [into a relationship] are not themes that are popular in Hollywood films.

In order to find out more, the researchers have launched a much larger, international study about the effects of the media on relationships.

They are asking people to participate by answering questions about personality, relationships, and media consumption habits by filling out a questionnaire which can be found here.

Posted by Jonathan as Art & Literature, Psychology at 11:59 PM GMT

2 Comments »

We have regularly pointed out that claims made by Body language aficionados are about as reliable as those made by Astrologers; and slightly less use than urban myths such as “men with big feet make good lovers” or “you should never trust left handed people and people whose eyebrows meet in the middle.”

However, browsing through the book Undercover Sex Signals by Leil Lowndes, we discover that women apparently have a secret signalling system to get men to talk to them. Then, as is usual with pseudo-scientific subjects, it’s revealed that nobody was ever aware of this arrangement (including the women) until the product you just bought was put together.

Here’s a very informative example from the book, which I found quite entertaining:

If you see a woman across the room looking at you and not smiling, you might not think she wants you to approach. But if you take careful note of her hands, you may see she is running a finger around her wineglass. It is not out of boredom. She might even be imagining that she is caressing you.

In this picture [of a girl holding a drink], Jade has chosen to caress her glass with her pointing finger, figuring that her middle finger or ring finger would be just too obvious.

Anyway, the book essentially lists gestures which Ms. Lowndes suggests that a woman will use to show that she is interested in a man. Naturally, all of these signals are so broad and vague that one might as well interpret anything except the woman screaming “Get away from me or I’ll call the Police” as a sign of interest.

Just for fun, here’s a list of some of the key points the author lists as body language signs of interest; and as an added bonus, we’ve reinterpreted the signals to tell you what they really mean.

Posted by Jonathan as Art & Literature, humour at 7:12 PM GMT

No Comments »

Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider authored a book entitled “The Rules“, back in the mid-nineties. Just recently, they came to London to give seminars.

For anyone that has no clue about the scope of dating literature available; The Rules is ostensibly a training manual for women, that teaches them to act a certain way, and play mind games in order to pull a man.

Remarkably, The Rules doesn’t focus on self-improvement, and instead of telling women to get into shape, act like fun people instead of a grumpy bitches, show what positive values they can bring to a relationship, have a good personality and generally make themselves into better human beings, who will in turn attract better quality men; the authors actually tell women to stop returning phone calls and to believe that they are a ‘Creature unlike any other‘, all without any basis whatsoever.

Effectively, this means the authors are telling women that aren’t models or celebrities to become scarce, and to make men work to have sex with them. Now, this strategy just might work for the best women (although I figure those women don’t need to buy Dating books). However, no man besides a desperate man is going to put much effort into getting sex from a sub-prime woman. Furthermore, if a woman is only average and a guy accepts disrespect from her in order to have sex, guess what… she has a loser on her hands.

Thus, instead of explaining to women that they have some flaws and need to do more if they want to pull a man, they are just told to act the way the book says. The women will still be as confused as they were before, or just as unattractive as before they read the book – but now they are acting stuck-up, as if they deserve to act that way – as if men are queuing up to date them, and they are merely sifting out the great men from the good men.

It seems strange that women would go to such lengths to inhibit their own sexual desire for men, in order to trick them into marriage. And, searching for more information about ‘The Rules’ on the interweb seems to bring up the same list of complaints from women, time and time again.

Rules girls complain about:

• Not having “dates”
• Not getting attention from men
• Not having any conversations
• Not having men asking them out
• Not having men flirting with them

Then they go on to gripe that girls with no idea about The Rules have to ‘beat men off with a stick’… But, they still don’t realise why these other girls are so popular with men.

On the other hand, it’s interesting how guys assume that girls go out with them because they are attracted to them; while girls assume that guys go out with them because they want someone to spend time with. Both are incorrect assumptions.

What women don’t understand is that the only reason a guy goes out with a girl is because he wants to have sex with her. Perhaps Fein and Schneider seriously believe that if a guy is lonely, all he wants is a “date”. But if that were true, then there would be loads of really ugly, really fat, horrible personality girls with boyfriends and husbands. Rules girls fail to realize that men pick women for a reason, and then they are surprised when guys want good-night kisses, blowjobs or sex.

In all the reports of women’s dating experiences using The Rules, that I could find, not once did a girl say she was sexually attracted to a guy she went out with:

• He was a nice guy
• He was funny
• He was a co-worker
• He was her boss
• He was popular
• He was well read
• He had nice car
• He was good-looking (Nb. this had no bearing on her sex plans)
• He was tall
• He was a blind date
• He was recommended by a friend

So, perhaps it’s no wonder that Rules girls wait three dates to have sex. These girls don’t really want the guys they are dating. And the sex for them is irrelevant because they are really only interested in having power in the relationship; the “dates”, the attention from men, an ego-boost and some flirtation.

This of course is pathetic; in the long run a girl’s beauty will disappear. Good-looking women know that they will lose their looks sooner or later – they just believe that they have time to play games before that eventually happens. They also know that they get many benefits that unattractive girls (and guys for that matter) never get, such as free drinks and complimentary entry to nightclubs etc.

Once women realize that their “good life” is based on something that will eventually go away, they are usually ready to learn how to conduct themselves as human beings instead of Princesses. After all, any qualities that a woman might claim in her 30s are fringe benefits, as opposed to what she had when she was in her 20s – because all guys want youthful good looks and sex skills. If the girl doesn’t have those, there is no foundation to build a “relationship” on.

After all, why would anyone want an old, wise, intelligent, asexual woman?

• Because she is available?
• Because now she’s learned the value of a good man?

Throughout her whole “good-looking” life, she shunned good men because they weren’t attentive enough for her or didn’t make enough money for her… Too late now.

So, one obvious reason that girls adopt The Rules is that they’re sluts in the first place; it’s in their natures to have sex on the first date, and return guys phone calls immediately etc. The Rules then becomes a crutch to stop them being easy. In this case, if you know that a girl is following The Rules, then you know that as soon as she feels horny enough, she’ll break The Rules by her own choice. After all, girls that don’t have sex when they feel horny must be defective.

Now, in the same way that there’s no reason for a guy to marry a girl that he’s already having sex with all the time, there is no reason for a girl to have sex with a guy that is already “dating” her. She now has attention, time, money, listening and an ego-boost etc., but she may be hiding behind The Rules in order to act like she has power in the relationship. And she will have power in the relationship… If the guy is a desperate milquetoast that must get that one special girl, and is prepared to play her silly games.

Once you know how to bypass The Rules, these girls are back to being sluts again, because The Rules is like a series of on-off switches. If he does this that or the other, dump him! If he passes all the tests, he must be a good one… Green light! The guy is then given the moral right to shag her. But, as a bonus, he now knows that she is probably going to give the same tests to the next man, so she will most likely remain with him. Just like when a man is married, he gets all the benefits of having a personal slut, the Rules girl is now more a whore than if she hadn’t been using The Rules.

So, using The Rules trades the other things a woman would want in a relationship for power, because she believes that without that power, she is going to get fucked, used and dumped. Rules girls have given up on the traditional “dating scene” and decided to hand over femininity for a regimented lifestyle, just like in the military…

The reason girls are so concerned about looking like a slut is because they think that society gives a damn if they have lots of sex or not, as if it’s going to be on News at Ten. They also think that sex too soon makes them look like a whore to the man they want a relationship with, and that he dumped her because she spread her legs too soon. Maybe there are instances where the guy says “Damn, we had sex fast… I don’t want an easy girl,” but for the most part he dumped her because he had enough of her. All he wanted was to shag her once, and all that dating and romance was so he would have sex. Otherwise, he would have spent his time with the very intelligent and witty fat, ugly woman that lives over the road.

Here’s the summary:

1. Girl starts going out with a guy.
2. Guy says he wants a relationship.
3. The girl has sex because she believed what the guy said about wanting to be with her forever.
4. The guy either leaves after sex, or the girl is now a “bootie call” instead of a girlfriend.
5. This process repeats a few times until the girl gets depressed.
6. Girl goes to the self-help section of the bookshop and sees a book claiming to help her marry a guy and keep him forever.
7. Girl stops returning calls, acting natural and cuts herself off from having sex, because she wants to know that he needs to be with her forever before she gets intimate.
8. Girl destroys her own sexual life for a few years while becoming a jerk-magnet; since most men will say “Fuck you bitch!” when women act like they aren’t 50% responsible for the communication in a “Relationship”.
9. Girl continues to act like she never wanted sex ever before in her life, and certainly not now or from you!
10. Girl meets guy who knows about The Rules and knows that after the 4th date, they are going to have sex.
11. The man acts accordingly, and the woman spreads her legs for the first time in years.
12. The sex is good, and she is sure he is the one.
13. They have sex until he is bored of her and never returns her calls ever again.
14. Go to (G.)

Posted by Jonathan as Art & Literature, Philosophy at 3:59 PM GMT

No Comments »

To quote the Poet and Philosopher, George Santayana:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

We agree; and there are often lessons to be learned from historic works. Thus, in the play ‘Love for Love’, by William Congreve (1670-1729), Miss Prue has yet to learn how to feign the indifference which allows more experienced practitioners of modern love a route to pleasure, whilst maintaining an appearance of honour.

So, in this short extract, you can see that Miss Prue’s high spirits inadvertently reveal the absurdity of the Seducer Tattle’s formulaic tuition in the art of seduction.

(Mrs Foresight and her friend have left the Seducer Tattle alone with the former’s ward, the country girl Miss Prue.)

Tattle: I must make love to you, pretty Miss; will you let me make love to you?

Miss Prue: Yes, if you please.

Tattle: [Aside] Frank, egad, at least. What a pox does Mrs Foresight mean by this civility? Is it to make a fool of me? Or does she leave us together out of good morality, and do as she would be done by? Gad, I’ll understand it so.

Miss Prue: Well; and how will you make love to me? Come, I long to have you begin. Must I make love too? You must tell me how.

Tattle: You must let me speak, Miss, you must not speak first. I must ask you questions, and you must answer.

Miss Prue: What, is it like the catechism? Come then, ask me.

Tattle: D’ye think you can love me?

Miss Prue: Yes.

Tattle: Pooh, pox, you must not say yes already. I shan’t care a farthing for you then in a twinkling.

Miss Prue: What must I say then?

Tattle: Why you must say no, or you believe not, or you can’t tell.

Miss Prue: Why, must I tell a lie then?

Tattle: Yes, if you’d be well-bred. All well-bred persons lie. Besides, you are a woman, you must never speak what you think. Your words must contradict your thoughts, but your actions may contradict your words. So when I ask you if you can love me, you must say no, but you must love me too. If I tell you you are handsome, you must deny it, and say I flatter you. But you must think yourself more charming than I speak you, and like me, for the beauty which I say you have, as much as if I had it myself. If I ask you to kiss me, you must be angry, but you must not refuse me. If I ask you for more, you must be more angry, but more complying. And as soon as ever I make you say you’ll cry out, you must be sure to hold your tongue.

Miss Prue: O Lord, I swear this is pure. I like it better than our old-fashioned country way of speaking one’s mind. And must not you lie too?

Tattle: Hum – yes. But you must believe I speak truth.

Miss Prue: O Gemini! Well, I always had a great mind to tell lies; but they frightened me, and said it was a sin.

Tattle: Well, my pretty creature; will you make me happy by giving me a kiss?

Miss Prue: No, indeed; I’m angry at you. [Runs and kisses him.]

Tattle: Hold, hold, that’s pretty well, but you should not have given it me, but have suffered me to have taken it.

Miss Prue: Well, we’ll do it again.

Tattle: With all my heart. Now then, my little angel. [Kisses her.]

Miss Prue: Pish.

Tattle: That’s right. Again, my charmer. [Kisses again.]

Miss Prue: O fie, nay, now I can’t abide you.

Tattle: Admirable! That was as well as if you had been born and bred in Covent-Garden all the days of your life. And won’t you shew me, pretty miss, where your bed-chamber is?

Miss Prue: No, indeed won’t I. But I’ll run there, and hide myself from you behind the curtains.

Tattle: I’ll follow you.

Miss Prue: Ah, but I’ll hold the door with both hands and be angry – and you shall push me down before you come in.

Tattle: No, I’ll come in first, and push you down afterwards.

Miss Prue: Will you? Then I’ll be more angry and more complying.

Tattle: Then I’ll make you cry out.

Miss Prue: Oh, but you shan’t, for I’ll hold my tongue.

Tattle: O my dear apt scholar!

Miss Prue: Well, now I’ll run and make more haste than you.
(Exit Miss Prue.)

Tattle: You shall not fly so fast, as I’ll pursue.
(Exit after her.)

Posted by Jonathan as Art & Literature at 1:00 AM BST

No Comments »

Seduction Labs holds the belief that good sex and quality relationships are the natural rights of everyone living on this planet – pretty much like sunlight, clean water and fresh air

However, at least once a week some feeble-minded, overexcited salesperson sends a missive, adamant that their sex toys, porn films, nutraceuticals or e-books will be the thing to cause an epiphany here in the labs, and convert free thinking pragmatists into corporate evangelists.

Just recently though, we were very surprised to be offered a Seduction university course to advertise – whereby one could become a ‘Seduction Artist‘ – Yes, we visited the website and they even have a picture of ivy covered buildings and dreaming spires – Presumably this is where they hold the tutorials, and would certainly be a very relaxing atmosphere for studying. However, they did omit to mention whether they were offering an honours course or not.

There are just two small problems:

1. Seduction doesn’t need more than an hour or two of formal education
2. Seduction as an ‘art‘ reveals the flawed, childish thinking of the various commercial seduction operations.

Everyone knows that if they studied a subject such as History or Geography etc., they would be rewarded with a Bachelor or Master of Arts degree. This is because these subjects are taught as ‘facts‘; and indeed, it’s very unlikely that I could persuade anyone that the Battle of Hastings didn’t happen in 1066, or that the capital of France wasn’t Paris…

Equally, nobody in their right mind would consider seduction as a science. This is because science looks at knowledge on a continuum; which means that scientific theories only become more and more likely to be correct, as experimentation continues to confirm them; whereas one successful disproving means that the knowledge in that theory needs to be reworked to incorporate the newly discovered information.

So, unfortunately, in terms of seduction, there are far too many aspects which do not remain constant over time, as would be expected within a science-like field of study. And, no self-proclaimed seduction ‘art‘ practitioners seem interested to cease their persistent ‘advocacy‘ in favour of ‘research‘, or even to put just a little effort into testing their assorted hypothesises – assuming that these seduction ‘art‘ supporters ideas could even be reconstructed into something capable of being disproved.

For these reasons, I cannot understand the seduction ‘art‘ brigade. And indeed, the last time I visited one of their boy’s clubs, there was debate about whether one should read books and go out and practise, or whether it was better to read nothing and go on an expensive seduction course. There should be no debate; expensive seduction courses are invariably fronted by fraudsters and are a waste of money.

It amazes me that anyone is prepared to give even an iota to these charlatans, with there unsubstantiated claims of ‘secret techniques‘, which invariably turn out to be freely available in numerous public internet forums, and are usually ignored by the vast majority of people, because the information is either out-of-date, or just didn’t work in the first place.

What about if one were to enrol as a student of some seduction university? Aside from being bombarded with information having little or no real world application, we know of no commercial seduction outfit that has ever failed any of its students. Therefore, anyone could snooze through the entire course, and finish the training claiming to be an advanced master seducer (or some similar self-styled title) – and then start up their own equally silly school of nonsense, to continue a cycle of lunacy and fraud.

The numerous Psychic schools and Crystal energy quack training courses seem to operate in a very similar fashion, and we’re looking forward to seeing the latest European consumer protection laws putting a stop to this criminal activity.

Posted by Jonathan as Art & Literature, Philosophy at 9:18 PM BST

No Comments »

Like pretty much every aspect of seduction, the craft of kissing is one which is only perfected with practise. Budding beginners need good role models to copy, in order to get their tongue movement, body positions and passionate glances all up to scratch. And, fortunately, Hollywood is still providing exceptional examples of all three; although sexual health scare stories have made some very good technical kissers less open mouthed on the screen.

However, digging around in the archives, and including the quite unabashed Richard Gere, does produce five perfect models.

Here they are:

• Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall in The Big Sleep

• Richard Gere and Debra Winger in An Officer and a Gentleman

• Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr in From Here to Eternity

• Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh in Gone with the Wind

• Christopher Jones and Sarah Miles in Ryan’s Daughter

An addendum needs to be included for Sylvester Stallone in Rambo: First Blood Part II, when he kisses the Vietnamese girl who’s just helped him escape from the POW camp.

It’s not that this is a particularly good kiss, but it’s outstanding just because it’s surrounded by so much blood and guts – the sole moment of saliva in a $30 million bloodbath.

Predictably, she gets killed in his arms.

Posted by Jonathan as Art & Literature, Sociology at 8:35 PM BST

No Comments »

In a country that has reached a population of over 1.1 billion there must be an extensive knowledge of what might increase reproductive behaviour. In the following article, some recommendations from Ayurvedic medicine, as well as from modern Indian herbalists have been brought together.

Ajwain: or Bishop’s Weed (Trachyspermum ammi) is a shrub, occurring from Egypt to India, and which has been used for medical purposes for several thousand years. The seeds are rich in thymol and are considered an effective aphrodisiac. The seeds should be crushed and fried in ghee (clarified butter), normal butter or olive oil together with an equal quantity of crushed tamarind seeds. A teaspoon of this fried product, taken together with honey and milk before bed, increases virility and cures premature ejaculation, according to traditional Indian herbal medicine.

Arjuna: Terminalia arjuna, is a tree found in India, Myanmar and Sri Lanka. A decoction of the powdered white bark with milk is alleged to be an effective sex stimulant if taken regularly over a period of time. Further uses suggested in Ayurvedic medicine include treatment of asthma and heart disorders.

Butea: The leaves of the Indian tree Butea monosperma, “Flame of the forest”, have been used in Indian herbal medicine as an aphrodisiac and to stop bleeding and diarrhoea. However, do note that an infusion of the leaves is also said to lower blood sugar, which could have detrimental effects.

Castus: Saussurea lappa (Compositae), also known in Chinese herbal medicine as mu xiang, occurs amongst other places, in Kashmir at an altitude of 2,500 – 4,000 metres above sea level. The root of the plant is well known in Ayurvedic medicine as an aphrodisiac, and contains an essential oil that is partly excreted in urine. During the passage of urine through the urethra the presence of the oil causes considerable irritation, which can give rise to a somewhat painful erection. This mechanism is similar to that of Spanish fly.

Cardamom: Powdered cardamom seeds, boiled with milk, produce a remedy against impotence and premature ejaculation, when taken together with honey in the evening. At least according to traditional Indian herbal medicine; but be careful as excessive use might lead to impotency, according to the same sources.

Hydrophilia: Asteracanthus longifolia is a stout, rough, thorny annual plant occurring in swamps in India and Pakistan. The seeds, the dried plant and the roots are used as a popular aphrodisiac. Fifty grams of the root boiled with one litre of water until the volume has been reduced to half a litre will provide a tonic of which three tablespoons should be taken daily for optimal effects.

Indian aloe: Aloe barbedensis of the Liliaceae family, is a 50-80 centimetre high plant with long, fleshy leaves and small yellow or orange flowers. The leaves are believed to be a useful aphrodisiac, but the skin must be removed before administration.

Indian liquorice: is a common name of the root of Abrus precatorius. However, it is the seeds, sometimes known as jequirity, that are believed to be an aphrodisiac. Do note that they contain the extremely toxic polypeptide abrin, which is as toxic as ricin, and five crushed seeds have been a lethal dose. During the early 20th Century, the seeds were used in India to poison English cavalry horses, although the normal use of the seeds is for ornamental purposes, e.g. in necklaces.

Indian mallow: Abutilon indicum has seeds which are believed to be both an aphrodisiac and a laxative (a rather bizarre combination of properties). Its leaves have been used to treat diarrhoea as well as Gonorrhoea and bladder inflammations.

Kuthimithi: All parts of the shrub Withania somnifera, known as Winter Cherry, Kuthimithi or under its Sanskrit name Ashwagandha, are said to promote libido, with the root being the most potent part. A traditional Indian recipe calls for two to four grams of the powdered root to be taken with milk. The plant belongs to the potato family, Solanaceae, but contains relatively few tropane alkaloids. However, somniferine is present, an alkaloid which can induce sleep if taken in sufficient quantities.

Salt: Sodium chloride can be regarded as the most basic spice. In Indian Ayurvedic medicine, rock salt obtained from the salt mines of Sindh was considered to be an aphrodisiac and a heart tonic.

The Kama Sutra

Otherwise known as Aphorisms on Love, by Vatsyayana, The Kama Sutra is a classical Indian treatise on the art of making love and related subjects. Its exact date of origin is not known, only that it must have been written between the first and the sixth century, A.D. It was first translated into English in 1883 by Sir Richard F. Burton.

Part seven deals with methods of “attracting others to yourself” and contains numerous recipes for internal as well as external use. Many of them are based on plants which are identified only by their Hindi names, and which are virtually impossible to obtain outside of India.

To make a woman surrender: If a man wants to make a woman subject to his will, he can prepare a mixture of the powders of white thorn apple Datura stramonium (Warning extremely toxic), long pepper (tippali, Piper longum) and black pepper, combine it with honey and anoint his penis before intercourse. It should be noted that the tropane alkaloids of the thorn apple will be readily reabsorbed through the mucous membranes of the penis and the vagina, and might cause severe poisoning. Alternative, and less risky, ointments to achieve the same purpose include constituents such as flowers thrown on a human corpse when carried out to be burned and the remains of a kite that has died a natural death. Another suggestion, to apply a mixture of arsenic and honey to the penis just before intercourse would also be extremely dangerous to both parties.

Increase sexual vigour: Several Kama Sutra preparations are said to increase sexual vigour. The easiest to prepare consists of equal parts of ghee (clarified butter), honey, sugar, liquorice, the juice of fennel bulbs and milk. This is “a nectar-like composition” which is “provocative of sexual vigour” and a “preservative of life”. Milk, liquorice and sugar/honey play a central role in many of the recipes. Additional ingredients can include the asparagus relative shitawari (Asparagus racemosus), long pepper (Piper longum) and the seeds or roots of Trapa bispinosa.

Slightly more exotic is the suggestion to boil the testicle of a ram or goat in milk, add sugar, and drink the concoction. The Kama Sutra does not specify whether the testicle should be pureed before serving.

Posted by Jonathan as Art & Literature, Biology at 12:01 AM BST

No Comments »

I used to think that Seduction was a science, and it’s easy to see why. If you follow a few simple rules, you end up with more love, friends and sex in your life.

But thinking a little deeper, any strategy I may suggest to you now will not guarantee that you the meet the person of your dreams, and it certainly wouldn’t work 100% of the time. Whereas if I told you how to synthesise some chemical compound, build an electronic circuit or even bake a cake; then so long as you take care, and have enough intelligence to follow my instructions properly, you know what to expect at the end of the process. And, as creator I would know what response someone would have – repeatedly.

However, if I were to write a play, compose music, or paint a picture then I will have had an intended response in mind during the creation process, but ultimately I cannot control what response you will have to my oeuvre. For this reason, I consider that Seduction is closer to an art than a science.

Whilst everything can be art, to claim “everything is art” is just lazy thinking. I could equally claim “everything is science”; since there is chemistry involved in painting, engineering governs much of sculpture and physics controls the harmonics of music etc. Although if you’re still not convinced, please contact me, as I have a dumpster full of art to sell you!

Now, I believe that there is a need for more serious study of art and seduction to be undertaken. Matters of seduction are too often relegated to the Humour section of bookshops, with perhaps the most serious studies being the “How to get your man to do what you want, whilst keeping him happy and upholding your Feminist principles” articles to be found in certain women’s magazines.

I would expect that art specialists would be perfectly positioned to tell us something about the relationship between biology and the erotic workings of the mind, because there are many great works of art of a sexual nature. Then there is erotica, and finally there is smutty literature of the type found in Soho sex shops, yet all depict essentially the same thing. More mysteriously, the people upset by this last category are often the same people who will gaze in wonderment at a painting of a naked lady.

Pornography and art seem to have gone hand-in-hand for longer than records exist, and with each new art medium pornography soon followed. So, perhaps originally, there was no dividing line, or maybe it just fluctuated over the centuries, as society wavered between repression and hedonism.

The Barbican’s exhibition Seduced: Art and Sex from Antiquity to Now is curated by Marina Wallace, Martin Kemp and Joanne Bernstein, all of whom seem to be well qualified and respectable curators. Thus, it’s disappointing that they have only managed to produce a collection of dry, uninformative pornography. Perhaps I missed something, but we learn nothing of the heritage of pornography, none of the art is put into context, and it’s not explained how the exhibited artists changed the circumstances in which art becomes porn or vice versa. Perhaps we’re just to assume that if Pornography is shown often enough, it’ll somehow transform itself into art.

During my visit to the exhibition, I found the other visitors more interesting than the artworks. The former being an interesting mixture of average people off the street, art anoraks, and the fetish crowd (complete with big boots, PVC clothing and outsize hats); whilst the latter consisted of a scant array of international pornography through the ages, and seemed to induce more sniggering from the visitors than thought provocation.

As someone who admittedly is still learning about fine arts, I left the exhibition without any clue as to whether a Jeff Koons picture, for example, was art, pornography or erotica.

The curators could have shed some light on why early pornographic films had a storyline and were very tender, yet so much modern pornography is just violent fucking. How does pornography relate to the films and TeeVee programmes we see these days? They could even have investigated differences between homosexual and lesbian pornography – but they’ve kept the exhibition almost entirely heterosexual, apart from a few early paintings.

So, ultimately, I’m not even sure why the exhibition is called Seduced. It would certainly have been more interesting if we had been seduced by it. But, unfortunately I can’t say I really learned anything new. Although I’m sure the fetish crowd could have shown the curators a few new things, given the chance.

Posted by Jonathan as Art & Literature, Reviews at 11:11 PM GMT

No Comments »