ClueChick: real clues from a real chick

Look for something unusual about the ad. Does she have something quirky or humorous in her ad? Does she give some characteristic that sets her apart from some generic ideal? Spammers target the lowest common denominator, so if she's setting herself apart or narrowing down her potential audience, that's a good sign.

Look for longer, chatty ads with personality. Spammers don't put a lot of personality in their ads, and they tend to be brief, sometimes only a line or two. Again, their target is as many people as possible, so they cast a wide net, and this tends to lead to a generic tone.

Look for women who sound "imperfect" (i.e., real). If she sounds too good to be real, she probably is. Women who are looking for casual sex are imperfect, just as all women are. If she claims to be 18 and gorgeous, I'll let you guess what the likelihood is that she's for real.

Posted by ClueChick at 11:13 PM in misc tips | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the fun things about casual sex is the fluidity of the relationships involved. My favorite fuckbuddies are those with whom I can make plans at the last minute, or not, or make plans and not stress about when we'll next manage to make plans, just counting on the fact that when we're both interested and available, we'll find the time.

On the other hand, though, there are the occasional frustrations along these lines. For example, Mr. The View drops into town about once a month, and it's almost always when I'm already committed to other plans. One of my personal practices is that I never drop plans with a friend in favor of a booty call, no matter how frisky I'm feeling. Mr. The View is, unfortunately, rather a fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants kind of planner, and I tend to be busy, so we often miss each other.

Because I'm an optimist, I like to look on the bright side and figure that this simply heightens the anticipation for those times when we do manage to connect. And in the meantime, perhaps tonight's date will benefit from a little of my frustration.

Posted by ClueChick at 4:32 PM in cluechick encounters | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I had big plans last night to post about a couple of tips you guys can use to help weed out the spam "w4m" ads on Craig's List, but I'm afraid I got sidetracked. I really can't recommend sex toys highly enough.

A few years ago, I was working in a fairly relaxed office, with some rowdy people, one of whom (the boss of pretty much everyone in that office) was going through a stressful but mostly amicable divorce. She came in one day feeling generally grouchy and out of sorts, and my direct supervisor finally asked her what the heck was going on. She explained that she was starting to feel some of the frustrations of being single.

At the time, I was also single, and in my early 20s, so, of course, I had a suggestion. "Go to Good Vibrations!" I said. "They're just around the corner!"

She looked at me in amazement. She was in her late 40s and had never owned a sex toy. In fact, it had never even occurred to her as an option. "People use those things???" she boggled.

"People don't???" I boggled right back.

She did not go shopping that day, but she did, eventually, venture out into the world to explore her options. The great thing about sex toys, though, is that they're good for when you're alone or with a partner. They're a great way to learn new things that you like, and to explore with a lover.

There's not always room for that kind of exploration in a casual sex context, but when there is, it's totally worth taking, because you never know what tips and tricks you might pick up.

Posted by ClueChick at 8:09 AM in cluechick encounters , misc tips | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday, I got an email, perhaps inspired by Sunday's post asking, "What's the weirdest thing one of your people has asked you to do?"

Before I answer this question, I want to make a general statement:

People, be careful what you ask me, because I'm basically an open book, here, and some of you aren't going to like what you read.

So you should only keep reading if you're really sure you want to know the weirdest thing (by my lights) that a lover has asked me to do since the commencement of my little fling with casual sex.

Okay, you're still reading, so I'll tell you: About six months ago, there was a guy who presented as basically normal, and who was generally fun in bed, when we got to that. But he really took me by surprise when, mid-fuck, he asked me to spit in his mouth. I mean, I know people get off on all kinds of things, and intellectually, I get the appeal of the spitting thing, but in practice? It's not so much my thing. Of course, as the spitter, it's pretty low-impact; it would've been different if he'd wanted me to be the spittee. Needless to say, though I found his request weird, it was also easy to accommodate.

I'm sure some of the other things I've been asked to do would rate higher on some people's weird scales, but that one definitely took the cake for me.

Posted by ClueChick at 10:20 PM in Q&A , cluechick encounters | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A friend was recently recounting to me her tale of woe with regards to trying to start sleeping with someone new. In the course of the flirtation, my friend commented to her lust-object that she'd like to know what his STD testing status is, and if he knows his partners', she wanted to know those, too. Her lust-object took this badly, and said, "I would never insult my partners by asking them to get tested!"

Upon hearing this, I first laughed and rolled my eyes, but having given it some thought, it's more than eyeroll-worthy; this kind of attitude is actively contrary to healthy casual sexual encounters. Let's talk about why.

First, everyone has different levels of risk-aversion. And, it seems, everyone thinks that anyone who doesn't agree with them is either paranoid or stupid. I'm explicitly not taking that stance. It's your job as a sexual person to decide what risks you're willing to take, and to be open about that with the people you sleep with. It's also your job to protect yourself, and that means asking questions like, "Have you tested positive for X, Y, or Z?" If you don't ask, it's not reasonable to be upset later that your one night stand turned out, oops, to have tested positive for all of the above, but didn't tell you because she was embarrassed or didn't think it was a big deal or figured you didn't care since you didn't ask. So, figure out what's important to you, what level of risk you're willing to take on, and how to manage that for yourself.

Okay, so now's the time where I call someone stupid. "I wouldn't insult my partners by asking them to get tested," is essentially equivalent to saying, "I would never have the bad judgement to sleep with someone with an STD." This is a fundamental misunderstanding of a) people, b) STDs and c) what it might mean for someone to have an STD.

People who have an STD are not somehow different from people who do not have an STD. And they certainly don't look different, so there's no way to tell just by how someone looks whether or not she or he has an STD. So if you think your judgement is good enough that if you're hot for someone, they must be "clean", you're wrong. Additionally, people who have come up positive on an STD test are not somehow bad people. So, saying that inquriing into someones disease history is insulting is... well, let's just say that I'm not impressed with this logic.

If you're comfortable sleeping with someone without discussing diseases and risk, great, that's your choice, and more power to you. But don't mistake your risk-tolerance for some kind of moral high ground or ultra-fantastic interpersonal filter.

Posted by ClueChick at 4:18 PM in misc tips | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the greatest things about the internet is that it opens a world of possibilities for people who like weird shit. Back in the 70s, I have no idea how people who were into balloon-popping for sexual pleasure found other people who were also into it. (These people, I've learned, are called "looners". If this sounds like your thing, I expect you to give a prayer of thanks to the geeks over at Google. I believe their preferred form of prayer is alcohol.) Any wacky thing you can think of, there's a group of people out there on the internet, chatting and sharing their fantasies and helping each other feel a little less alone.

Okay, maybe you're more creative than I am, and you can think of something for which there is no fetish group. I don't know. But I guarantee that if there isn't yet, there will be soon!

At any rate, what this means for all of you out there who are looking to pick people up on the internet, is that if you have a crazy fantasy that you've always been too embarrassed to tell a boyfriend or a girlfriend, you may finds casual encounters are a good way to play that out.

You want someone to tickle you while you fuck? Or you get hot thinking about that thing you saw on a porn flick once, where the woman leaned back on a yoga ball? Or whatever crazy thing you've been too shy to broach in relationships?

Give it a try! After all, what's the worst that happens? Your date thinks you're weird. Big deal!

Posted by ClueChick at 6:31 PM in misc tips | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It's so easy to conflate sex and love that I have resolved not to talk about love while in bed with a new lover. We all know that stereotype of the person calling out at the moment of orgasm, "I love you!" only to regret it moments later. That's a magnification of the easy slide from, "I feel good and happy when I'm snuggled up with you after sex," to thinking that this warm, snuggly feeling is love, to, "I love you."

Now, you may think that I'm doing this as a way to avoid emotional commitment (and I'll be the first to admit that I have commitment issues), but from my point of view, it's more about keeping my emotions honest than it is about keeping them safe. I don't want to confuse sex for love, because if I do, I'm doing my emotional landscape a disservice.

It's one thing to express love in post-coital bliss with someone with whom that relationship is already established, but it seems a foolish first time to say it. Sure, it's also an easy time to say it.

Never let it be said, however, that I recommend the easy option.

Posted by ClueChick at 8:21 PM in ground rules | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

The other day, this query appeared in my inbox:

How cuddly should a guy be?

I have to tell you, I don't really know how to answer this kind of question, because the answer depends so much on the individual you're with. Really, the best way to find out how cuddly you should be is to ask your partner. Or act as cuddly as you like, and if she finds it excessive, she'll probably take some of her space back. Or if it's not enough, you'll find her touching you more.

Speaking for myself, I tend to be a little less on the cuddly side than many. I like to touch, but I don't like to be entwined or tangled for more than a few minutes. I like spooning, but I far prefer to be on the outside 99% of the time. I love friendly touch: stroking his arm or back or standing close enough that our shoulders touch. I also like to receive that kind of touch.

So, now you know what to do if you ever get me into bed. But, really, if you're sleeping with someone else (which I assume you are, since you're not sleeping with me), I suggest you ask her what she likes!

Posted by ClueChick at 10:24 PM in Q&A | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Last night, my date gave me one of the top ten compliments I've ever received:

"You're like a porn star, but without the skeevy!"

Needless to say, today I'm feeling smug.

Posted by ClueChick at 9:53 AM in cluechick encounters | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

We all know the line, "No means no." And that's an easy one, right? Of course no means no. Except, naturally, when no means, "Talk me into it," or "Well, maybe, if I have a little more time to think about it."

The problem, here, is not just with men ignoring women when they say no, but women saying no when they mean something else. Women, you can help by saying no when you mean no, but not otherwise. Find another way to flirtatiously suggest that he should work harder if that's what you want. A flippant head-toss and a vague, "I don't know," is better than a flirtatious, "No..." Men, you can help by backing off when a woman says no. Even if it really seems like she doesn't mean it, you can act like she does. If you really want to keep flirting, ask her for clarification. If she has any good sense at all, she'll be chagrined when you point out that saying but not meaning no is a recipe, on a social level, for disaster.

Also, guys, it may be hard to believe, but sometimes a woman really means no. I often try to let people down easy, because I know it's hard to be rejected, but this, not infrequently, results in the hard sell.

I say, "I just don't think we're a good match."
And he says, "But why?" (Guys, never ask why. Trust me.)
"It's not doing anything for me."
"Oh, give me a chance..."

After trying to let him down gently, I resort to the big guns, "No, I'm really not interested. Have a good day!" And even then, he often tries to talk me into ... something.

This is lame. I know that there are all kinds of mixed signals in the dating game, but there's nothing that makes me want to hang a guy upside down by his toenails like having him treat me like I don't know what I really want. And when he ignores my saying no, it only reinforces my decision that he's not the man for me, since if he can't even respect me enough to take me at my word, I don't see how I'd ever be right to trust him in future encounters.

Posted by ClueChick at 3:38 PM in cluechick encounters | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Isn't sex with love more satisfying than a casual encounter?

This is a question that a couple of readers have asked me in the last month or so, and, interestingly, the attitude behind this question is reflected in many of the emails I get. Lots of people seem to agree that casual sex is morally okay, but that it's really just a placefiller for the Real Thing, that is, sex with a loved one. Sure, there might be good reasons to choose casual sex over sex in the context of a committed relationship, but assuming that someone could have both, why would she or he ever choose a casual encounter?

Let me see if I can break this down in a way that makes sense. I'm going to assume that everyone reading this blog is on board with general sex-positiveness, right? Oh, sure, we're all carrying around a little baggage here and there, but we basically agree that sex is good, and fun, and it's a moral choice that doesn't imply a need for confession every Sunday or guilty sneaking around, I hope. Okay, good.

And love is great, is it not? Being in love, or loving someone, feels good. It can be fun, connecting, intense, enlightening, and, in many other ways, wonderful.

These two things are not actually related. I love a lot of people in my life, only some of whom I have sex with. And I have sex with a lot of people, again, only some of whom I love. And every sexual partner is different, so every sex act is different, and not only from partner to partner, but from day to day. A shy, exploratory makeout session today may lead to a button-poppingly intense fuckfest next week, after all. But being in love is not a prerequisite for sexual evolution. From my point of view, simple familiarity, learning each other's patterns, will do that.

Love can heighten sexual intensity. And sex can increase intimacy in a romantic relationship. But they don't always, and other things can do the same. My most intense sexual encounters have been with someone so dysfunctional that love is not actually an option. On the other hand, I have very close loves with whom I rarely, if ever, have sex. We usually call these platonic loves friends, and for me (though I may be outside the norm on this), they are an indispensable part of my emotional landscape.

Assuming that sex with love is more rewarding than casual sex is conflating the issue, and it reflects the puritanical underpinnings of everyday life. I'll admit that this sometimes crops up for me, where I figure that someday, I'll stop fucking around and get serious. That may be true, but it doesn't mean that one thing is somehow better than the other. They are so very, very different that I can't realistically compare them. Apples and oranges, anyone?

Posted by ClueChick at 10:06 AM in ground rules | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the things I've been wondering about, for myself, is how my casual sex experiment (which began almost exactly a year ago! happy anniversary to me and casual sex!) would develop if/when I started to date someone on a more regular basis.

Until relatively recently, if you had asked me if I was ready to start dating again, I'd've said, with horror in my voice, "No!" More recently, I started saying, "Okay, I might be getting close to considering the possibility of maybe thinking about pondering the theoretical potential that I might be starting to think about maybe seeing someone more seriously. Maybe." More recently still, I seem to have, in fact, started, um, dating someone.

Don't tell anyone!

Just kidding, of course. Everyone who should know, knows already. And, yes, he knows about the blog. (*wave*)

In the past, when I've been in a steady-type relationship, I haven't had any interest in casual sex, but, then, I hadn't been interested in casual sex before those relationships, either. So I'm quite curious to see if I remain interested in having casual/light play with others, even in the context of this relationship. You all should stay tuned for details.

Posted by ClueChick at 10:19 AM in cluechick encounters | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I like sex. I like romance. And I like sex with romance, and romance with sex. But when I'm picking someone up in an explicit casual sex arrangement, i don't like or want romance. It freaks me out. It makes me think that he's not thinking about things being quite so casual.

If you're doing the personal ad thing for serious dating, by all means, bring flowers to the first date, wine her, dine her, or what have you. Though, to be fair, I should warn you that if you come on too strong too early, that's not going to be good for you, either.

In the context of casual play, though, none of that should come in, especially not early. You may have an ongoing thing in which it eventually makes sense to have a bit of light romance, but that's not a good place to start.

Posted by ClueChick at 10:48 PM in misc tips | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It's extraordinarily unusual for me to respond to men's postings on Craig's List or to their profiles on dating sites. It's one of the major downsides of the dating economy, and especially of the casual sex economy, that I, as a woman, can be lazy and still have my pick of many, many men. This is good for me, and bad for the guys, for all the obvious reasons. It's also, of course, the reason I started this blog in the first place.

But there are ads that occasionally leap out at me and inspire me to respond. Whenever I sit down to try to characterize them as a group, though, I get stuck. I can name the qualities I look for, but they hardly set me apart from the things that pretty much everyone looks for, and they're not at all specific: intelligence, sense of humor, good-natured... Who, after all, doesn't want that?

I may be less picky about the personality traits I look for in a fling than I am in looking for a regular partner, but I still am much more likely to get the hots for someone, even for a one-off, if he's more than just a good-looking mimbo.

So, when I'm inspired to respond to someone's ad, it's because he's gotten me hot with the way he writes. Maybe he's got a witty or unusual turn of phrase that catches my eye (or imagination), or he shows that he's more than just a pretty face in the way he presents himself. This is why it's worth spending some real time on your ad, and the benefit to that is twofold: once you have a good ad, you can use it to flesh out future emails you send to people who might interest you, and also, a good ad can be posted more than once, so the hard work is done.

If you can manage to capture my imagination before we're even exchanging emails, you've made a good first step to getting into my bed.

Posted by ClueChick at 6:07 PM in misc tips | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I had intended to give a long, thought-provoking weekend post on the difference between casual sex and sex in a relationship, but then I had such a fantastic weekend that I didn't get a chance to.

Today, I'd like to share yet another pet peeve. We all know that I'm not particularly impressed by those guys who post to CE offering money to "amateurs" who might be willing to hook up with them. Yes, I know some people fetishize the exchange of money, and I'm all for some good, clean fetishization, but I think many of those fellows offering money are doing so because they have few other charms to recommend them, not because it makes them hot to pay for it.

When I'm queen of the universe, things might change, but I'm willing to live with imperfection as long as there's fun to be had despite (or, in some cases, because of) that.

However, I occasionally get responses to my ad, which never mentions money, wherein the responder offers money as a way to set himself apart from the crowd. This zooms beyond tacky and lands well into sleazy. Guys, don't do that. It implies that you think all women can be bought.

Now, I actually do think that most people can be bought, particularly if they've already shown themselves to be open to casual encounters. But if a woman is already looking for casual sex, she's taking herself out of the "scarcity" equation and may even be trying to move her own sexual economy away from being a commodity.

You may think little enough of sexually adventurous women (or all women in general, for that matter) that you think it's reasonable to buy them off, but many of us find that downright offensive.

Posted by ClueChick at 2:12 PM in snarky | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As anyone who participates in casual encounters knows, sometimes you're pickier than others. For me, unsurprisingly, this tracks to my horniness. Some weeks, I can't wait to get some, and other weeks, I'm only interested in sex if there's not a lot of work between me and it. For you, the man responding to my personal ad, this will have a huge impact on your likelihood of success. If I'm particularaly horny, my bar goes down, while when I'm a little more laid-back, I get very picky and start looking for a lot of specifics, little details that fit my mood.

Once, when I was feeling a bit more flirty, I got one of those toss-off emails that doesn't normally turn my head, but I figured, hey, it's easy to send a quick response that doesn't take much effort. This turned into a rapid-fire series of flirtatious emails, and before I knew it, we were talking about meeting up at a cheezy coffee shop near my house. And, by the way, says he, you sound pretty frisky. Should I bring a friend?

Now, a couple of people have emailed me asking how to set up threesomes, and I'd love to give advice on that, but the one time I actually have arranged a threesome, it wasn't by design: I was, as he noted, pretty frisky, and he had a handy friend, and I was game, so off we went! Since then, I've tried a couple of times to post specifically for couples, of various gender configurations, and it turns out that planning ahead for this sort of thing seems to be a bit of a challenge.

Conveniently, my young bucks, as I call them, ring me up every few weeks, and if we're all free, it comes together (cough) nicely. Timing is, indeed, everything.

Posted by ClueChick at 12:35 PM in cluechick encounters | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

hi there

i'd love to surprise my Master with someone like you. if you'd be interested in chatting about it, please drop me a note sometime

This approach stands on its own, of course, as yet another impressively poor email introduction. But let's say that you're in a relationship where you like to, or are asked to, pick up partners for your partner. What's the best way to do that?

In many ways, whether you're trying to pick someone up for yourself or for your friend or lover (or "Master", though y'all won't be surprised to know that term rubs me the wrong way, and my feelings on the gratuitous capitalization are... well... not good), how to approach it is the same: You want to express yourself clearly -- what you're looking for, and why this person seems like s/he'll be a good fit, as well as a bit of appropriately tempting advertising so as to pique your target's interest.

What's different about one of these, though, is that if you're doing the picking up on behalf of someone else, you'd better explain why it is that you're doing it, and how your target can know that this won't be just a big clusterfuck. That is, I get an email from someone wanting to pick me up for his friend and I wonder, how can I know that just because this guy is interesting and writes well that his friend will, too? In the case of the above email, I wonder, what exactly is this "Master" looking for, what's the context in which the person who sent me the mail is trying to pick me up, and what does that have to do with me? More information is definitely in order.

Interestingly, an email that's geared toward picking someone up on someone else's behalf automatically stands out a bit from the crowd, because they're rather unusual. I've probably gotten three in the course of the last year, out of thousands. They don't even have to be spectacularly impressive to stand out, therefore. On the other hand, because they imply a higher level of complication, they do need to be clear, right from the outset, that this situation isn't going to lead me into a pile of psychodrama. Unfortunately, none of them have done that, so far. Is this inherent in any situation where the would-be-fucker is not the person making the approach? I'd like to think not, but it rather seems that way.

Posted by ClueChick at 11:35 AM in actual responses | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sometimes, when you're browsing personal ads, what you're looking for isn't an actual hookup. Lots of people post looking for netsex or phone sex or photo exchanges. These are all things you can get by paying for them, but there can be an extra charge in doing those things with "real" people rather than professionals. Obviously, the theory behind finding someone who's not a pro at it is that you can hope and imagine that the other person is enjoying it as much as you are, not just for the paycheck.

I'm no good at phone sex, because, believe it or not, I'm shy about talking about sex out loud. I did a lot of netsex when I was in college, but not so much recently. But I do have a bit of an exhibitionist streak, and a friend with a great camera, who took some really hot photos of me recently. (Never let it be said I'm modest.) So, every once in a while, some guy posts to CL about wanting to exchange pics, and if I'm in a flirty mood, I might take him up on it.

One fellow, in particular, posted in my city despite living in another city, thus making it clear that he would never expect to meet up. He wanted pictures of body parts, not necessarily faces, and I thought, hey, why not? So I sent him a photo, and almost immediately, I got an email back from him completely gushing over how great it was, and did I have another? Yes, of course I did, and we had a fun little exchange about my photos and his appreciation of them.

This was great fun. I love being on the receiving end of enthusiastic compliments, and he clearly loved being on the receiving end of my photos. It was a low-pressure, win-win situation. Sometimes, that's just the thing.

Posted by ClueChick at 2:29 PM in cluechick encounters | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

hi angel you look so pretty,really love to be your friend.am joe shmoe,love to have your yahoo id so we have instant chat,mine is joeshmoecontractors@yahoo.com really like to hear from you.please i will be waiting to see your reply.have a great day

Okay, so I'm on a roll with exemplar emails, so I'm going to keep up with the theme today. This email just arrived to my OkCupid inbox.

Here's the kicker for you guys out there: women online get a lot of email, so what you want to do is set your email apart. I've talked about this in the past, but it bears repeating. What may sound like a perfectly fine basic intro approach would be, in the context of 50 or 100 basic intros, just so much uninteresting noise. The bad stuff, like Mr. Shmoe, above, stands out for its humor value, but lots of guys who I'm sure are actually interesting and might be a lot of fun in bed shoot themselves in the foot by not thinking about the context in which their email will be received.

If you're writing to someone on a dating site, they probably don't get completely inundated on a daily basis, but they probably do get at least several emails a month, and she's probably looking for the ones that really shine. If you're writing to someone on Craig's List, you have to do even better, because she is getting inundated, as she'll likely receive more than 100 emails over the course of the first couple of days her ad is up.

Reread your introductory email in that context and imagine you're on the receiving end of it. Does it stand out? If not, think about what might set you apart from the crowd, because there really is a crowd. Just because it sounds good when its on its own doesn't mean it'll do the trick in a full inbox. After all, you may look hot in sweats and a t-shirt, but if you're going to try to pick someone up in a bar, you'll put a bit of extra effort into your appearance before you leave the house. Do yourself a favor and spiff up your email the same way.

Posted by ClueChick at 5:06 PM in actual responses , misc tips , misc tips | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I really enjoyed your post. You seem very upfront and honest, which, when combined, are a big plus! I'm 26, a recent grad student, brown hair, eyes, 5'9, avg build, witty, sarcastic, kissable, also honest and upfront. I'm terribly new to this, but I think we might make a good match since we seem to have similar interests. I'm totally single, no extramarital affairs here-that's kinda creepy.

You seem very comfortable with yourself, which is a huge turn on. Finding someone who is uninhibited is one of the reasons I was attracted to your ad. I think we are looking for very much the same thing- an ongoing, no drama, honest and safe place to have a lot of fun : ) I'm definately a little frustrated with "traditional" partners. I guess my tastes are a little more on the wild side. Can't believe I just used the term, "wild side". I do like to be a little kinky, but I'm not into any real pain, y'know, beyond just what's fun. I'm also pretty vocal, and its a big turn on to be with someone who is articulate in bed as well. I'm very openminded about a lot of things, and will try pretty much anything once. If you're interested, we can get into more detail about what we both really like, and hopefully we'll be on the same page for most of it.

As for my own history, I've always been safe. I've had a few longterm monogomous relationships, and everything else has been completely safe. I've also been tested recently, and hope you have been too. I'm trying to think of what else I can tell you about me... I have the thundercats logo on my desktop!

If you like what you've read so far, I'd really love to hear back from you. I have some pics too, if you'd like to trade. We could chat on the phone, and if all seems right, meet for some coffee or a drink? Let me know...

What's great about this response? First, he obviously read my ad. You all, even without having read my ad, can tell that he's responding to particular things I might have said, and you, most likely, could recreate some of what I posted, based on what he said in his response. He clearly took time to think about what he was saying and to consider if I, in particular, was someone he was interested in, and then took the time to convey that interest to me.

Unlike many men, who will leave it at, "You sound really cool!" this guy told me what about me seemed appealing to him, and the reasons that he, in turn, was a good fit for those things that I'd expressed.

Additionally, there's a lot of great personality in his response. He thinks extramarital affairs are creepy, and he's got a sense of humor about it. He describes himself using some standard details like height and hair color, but also something a little more offbeat, like saying he's kissable and witty. That's hot, both because, hey, kissable and witty are hot, and because the creativity that goes into stepping out of the standard descriptors is also hot.

He talks about the "wild side" and then pokes fun of himself for that turn of phrase. I love a prospect who doesn't take himself too seriously, and who has a sense of humor about it.

Finally, of course, he's not shy about talking about logistics like safer sex, which is a good sign that I'm dealing with someone who's up my alley in terms of up-front communication and discussion, not just about mutual fantasies, but about the details that make this kind of play safe and fun.

There are so many examples of bad responses, and sometimes coming up with examples of good ones can be tough, but this is one of my all-time favorites.

Posted by ClueChick at 12:39 PM in actual responses | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Okay, today I was going to post something more thoughtful, but then this email arrived for me on OkCupid, and it wins the Worst Email of the Week award, so, naturally, I had to share:

hi
how r u
liked ur profile
reply if ur interested . i too love sex and u appeal to me a lot
luv n kisses

The email was, eloquently, titled "hi". Naturally, his profile is similarly empty of content and completely spelled out "you"s.

What would make his email better?

First, there's the obvious point of going to the effort of spelling out short words like "are" and "you". On the one hand, I know this is a bit elitist, but the truth is, guys, there probably aren't too many women who would ding you for writing real words, and there are lots who will ding you for not, so it's probably worth the extra keystrokes.

Second, he says he likes my profile, but he doesn't say why. This makes it hard for me to know if what he liked is real, or if he's projecting it onto me, or if he even read my profile. Because my profile is relatively complete, it wouldn't be hard for him to find something substantive to comment on: "I see that you're opinionated. That's such a coincidence, 'cause I have opinions, too! That's why we're a great match!" or "When I read that you have a blog, I knew I had to write you, because I think blogs are awesome." Or whatever, just give me something.

Third, and I know this one is an easy trap to fall into, but I always have to laugh when someone tells me that if I'm interested, I should get back to him. This comes in many forms: "If you like what you read, hit me back." or "You can email if you agree we're a good fit." In general, here, I suggest going with the more optimistic and less duh-inducing, "I can't wait to hear from you!" or something along those lines. Unless a woman is completely stupid, she knows that if her interest is piqued, the way to handle it is to respond.

Finally, signing off with love and kisses (or luv and...) is premature. On the one hand, it's a small thing, and on the other, it makes me think this guy isn't going to pay much attention to, oh, I don't know, reality.

Tomorrow: a good email approach and what I liked about it.

Posted by ClueChick at 10:00 AM in actual responses | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)