ClueChick: real clues from a real chick

I recently received an email from an unusually well-spoken fellow, which said, in its entirety, "i have a great tongue to make you cuuuuuuuummmmmmmm"

As you might imagine, I was very, very impressed. I mean, who doesn't like to, uh, cuuuuuuuummmmmmmm?

Okay, so here's the thing. I like to come. Although I don't like it, I can put up with "cum", mainly because I have to. And it might be sexy to have someone say, for example, "Hey, baby, I want to feel you come," and when they're whispering it in my ear, I bet I'd like it if they were to draw out the word, like they're moaning. Yes, I can imagine that being hot.

But a string of "mmmmm"s in an email is not the same. It is not evocative. It is not sexy. It makes you look not only silly but downright sleazy. Don't do it.

Posted by ClueChick at 5:52 PM in actual responses | Permalink | Comments (0)

Damn, I almost forgot about you guys tonight! I met a new boy this evening, and he did several things right! It's so great:

First, his initial email was, obviously, good: He told me a bit about himself, what he was looking for, and why he liked my ad. He included a clear picture of himself that left some things to the imagination. Then, when I responded to his email, he answered all my questions, had a couple of his own, and told me more about himself.

After a few back-and-forths, I decided I'd be up for meeting him, so we set up a time this afternoon. I gave him my phone number in case of last minute changes, and when he got stuck in traffic, he called to let me know he'd be a bit late. When he showed up, he looked like his picture, was apologetic about being late, and we had a very pleasant conversation. At the end of the conversation, he made it clear that he'd like to get together again without being pushy or demanding about it. Then he gave me a very nice kiss.

Just now, he sent me an email to reiterate his enjoyment of the date and that he looks forward to seeing me.

It's all vaguely like looking for a job, somehow, what with the application, interview, and followup, and yet, his doing all these things totally makes me want to do this guy just to reward good behavior. Man, it's nice to see someone do it right for a change!

Posted by ClueChick at 10:51 PM in cluechick encounters | Permalink | Comments (2)

I often see, both in profiles in dating sites and in posts on Craig's List, people saying, "I can't believe I'm posting this here. We'll tell our friends we met at a bar/party/supermarket."

People, get over it. I swear, even my parents have friends who've met people over the internet, which means that this is no longer shameful, much less weird or secret. If you are ashamed of posting there, don't do it. No, really, it makes you look silly.

Personally, I'd much rather fuck a guy who is up-front and honest about who he is and how he does things than someone who feels like he has to sneak around and is willing to do something that makes him feel cheap on the off chance it'll get him laid/a girlfriend.

Posted by ClueChick at 5:21 PM in misc tips | Permalink | Comments (2)

I am having the most frustrating IM conversation ever. This guy responded to an ad I posted, and I wrote back asking him to tell me more about himself. He offered me his IM handle with the promise that he'd be happy to talk to me in chat.

Great! I thought. This is a handy, fast way to get the sense of someone, assuming I have the time for it, which, naturally, I don't always. But it can be good for finding out how someone interacts in a slightly more real-time setting.

In this case, however, at every opportunity to share information about himself, this guy dodged the question, sometimes direct, sometimes implied, and then would talk about something irrelevant for a few lines, and then would say something like, "But tell me about you! I don't like to talk too much."

Boooring! If you want the conversation to go a different way, ask a question. If you're not interested in the questions that someone is asking you, dodging them is okay, but if you dodge every one of their questions, they're going to suspect that you're doing it on purpose. And, in the case of this person being a woman evaluating if she wants to fuck you, it's possible, just possible, that she's asking questions that she needs answered in order to make that decision. Dodging the question in lieu of giving the wrong answer is a fine thing to do once, but if that's your entire conversational strategy, it's unlikely to get you laid.

it certainly won't get you into my pants.

Posted by ClueChick at 10:34 PM in cluechick encounters | Permalink | Comments (1)

Can anyone decipher this one for me?

Tall 36d???? a bit supm u live and work in town u are single u wont melt in the rain????

Posted by ClueChick at 8:28 PM in actual responses | Permalink | Comments (6)

I was thinking today, as I was avoiding doing my paying job, that I don't think I've talked about how it is I discovered the Casual Encounters section of Craig's List in the first place. Back in the day, of course, I was as sweet and innocent as... well, okay, even then I wasn't exactly sweet and innocent, but I had been dating the same person for ages and really wasn't interested in casual sex because I was sure it just wasn't for me.

One of my friends -- you all know her, in fact, as it's the one and only sapiophile -- told me about the CE section in a somewhat disbelieving voice. I was amazed and delighted to hear of such a thing, but I was also confused. Could there possibly be, I wondered, enough people who look for that sort of thing to support a whole section on Craig's List? I looked, and by gum, there certainly was.

Satisfied with my sociological discovery, carried on with my life.

Some months later, I had my first one night stand, completely spontaneously and somewhat by accident (I would have seen him again, though if I'd known then what I know now, I wouldn't have been willing to), and I really enjoyed it. By then, I was single and had no desire to be dating, but I suddenly saw the light with regards to casual sex. Well, thought I, OkCupid delivered the first one, but how do I find more of these guys? (Have I told you all about my first one night stand? I don't remember.)

Then I remembered some vague memory about Craig's List, a sociological discovery, and bafflement at people who would look for this very thing.

Aren't I lucky that someone else thought of it before I did, so all I had to do was sign on?

Posted by ClueChick at 9:36 PM in cluechick encounters | Permalink | Comments (0)

This morning, I received a query on a topic that's often on my mind:

Dear ClueChick,

I've run into an interesting issue of late and I'd love your thoughts. The last two women I've met for casual encounters had the interesting issue of being unable to have an orgasm when having sex with a stranger (i.e., me). They assured me it wasn't my performance that caused the lack of orgasm, just a general issue with all new guys they sleep with. Despite this, they continue to have and enjoy casual encounters.

How important is the orgasm to the casual encounter? Do you experience one the first time you're rolling around with someone new?

Now, I could go on and on in my response, here, but I'll try not to bore you all too much. First, of course, each person places a different level of importance on the orgasm as part of the sexual experience, whether casual or otherwise. I happen not to place a lot of importance on it, because I almost never get off when I'm with a partner, casual or committed, but I still enjoy sex quite a lot (obviously). For someone for whom orgasm is less of a hurdle, I suspect that the big O plays a more important role in the whole experience.

So, no, I don't come the first time I'm fucking a new person, and probably not the next several times, either, because it takes me a while to get comfortable enough with someone to be able to talk about the details of my complicated relationship to orgasm. To say it's a loaded topic would be both an intentional pun and an understatement. I've never wanted to turn my sexual experiences into a possibly-fruitless quest for an orgasm when I enjoy the whole shebang uncomplicatedly without.

That said, I always like it when I'm with a lover who cares about my pleasure. This can be a tricky topic, itself, because, of course, I like my lovers to give me the opening to say what I need, but I don't want them to be pushy about it if I say I'm not going to come. On the other hand, I imagine it must be frustrating for them. I imagine how I would feel if my lover never came, and I'll tell you, it would definitely make me doubt my mad skills in bed, so I've decided to go on a quest to get off with partners more often. The trick there, of course, is to find partners with whom I can explore this topic, touchy bits and all. Needless to say, this is not casual encounter fodder. That's another post, though.

All that said, I assure you that sex can be a hell of a lot of fun, even if there's no orgasm, and as long as you're giving your lovers a chance to tell you what would help them get off and are showing that you're interested in making that happen for them, you're doing what you can. Reaching orgasm in any encounter is a two-person interaction, and if your lovers say they just don't get there the first time(s) with someone new, they ought to know. With any luck, you'll get a chance to test the theory that it's just the getting-to-know-you factor.

Posted by ClueChick at 5:09 PM in Q&A | Permalink | Comments (0)

We all have them: profiles on various dating sites. Some sites give lots of questions for us to fill out, while others leave a general "about me" section that you can complete with as much or as little detail as you like. Even those sites with many fields don't usually specify how much you need to say in each one.

I have one profile that I particularly like, and I tend to use it, or parts of it, as a default when I'm starting one on a new site. I can only come up with so many thoughtful things to say about myself, after all. And I can understand the writer's block that comes into play when faced with a whole screen that I'm supposed to fill with scintillating details about myself.

So what's the point?

You should fill out your profile on a dating site because it's the socially acceptable generic letter that so many of you are fond of sending. You know, the one that tells me who you are without telling me anything about why you found me interesting? The one that I pretty much never respond to, because it's so generic and doesn't tell me anything about how you AND I might fit together? Yeah.

But on a personal ad site, this is your big chance to have all that information in one place, where I would expect it to be. And then when you write me a short note to start a conversation, I can look at your profile and learn about you!! This is great, because it doesn't make me feel like I'm getting spammed, it means you don't have to write as much, and it shares actual information between us.

I get lots of pretty contentless approaches on dating sites. When they're backed up by an interesting profile, the chances of my responding increase dramatically. When I get a thoughtful (even if short) approach paired with a good profile ... well, that's golden.

You've gotta give me something to work with, after all.

Posted by ClueChick at 8:17 PM in dating sites , misc tips | Permalink | Comments (2)

I had a new-to-me experience in meeting people online last week: I met someone I already know.

It's a little surprising, actually, that in the course of more than a year of fairly actively pursuing hookups, this is the first time I've had someone I know (and have flirted with) answer my ad. Actually, that may not be true, because I didn't recognize his email address, since he (cleverly) was using an anonymous address through hotmail. For all I know, lots of guys I know have written me but not passed the bar of people who get a response, or have heard back from me, realized who I am, and decided they didn't want to deal with someone they know in negotiating casual sex.

That last sounds funny, but it turns out I'm having that reaction, myself. I can have a great time in the context of a friends-with-benefits sort of thing with someone I already know as a friend. And I can enjoy developing either a fling or a fwb with someone new. But people in a middle ground, acquaintances, are a whole different story. I find that they know too much about me (and/or my social sphere) for me to be totally "yeah, whatever" with them, but not enough for me to be able to open up and be relaxed.

I've run into this hesitation on my part in other contexts of information sharing (i.e., I don't care what strangers know about me, and my friends basically know everything, but people I know socially are the ones I wouldn't want to find out about this, that or the other.) But this is, fascinatingly, the first time I've encountered it specifically with regards to personal ads. It makes an interesting (I hope) blog entry, but beyond that, I think I'd've been just as happy to skip it.

Though, if you're that hot guy I've been lusting after, I'd be willing to make an exception if you respond to my ad. Write now!

Posted by ClueChick at 3:42 PM in cluechick encounters | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've been thinking about cream pie guy, and in particular, Zachary's question as to whether I would let this guy (if he came across as not dangerous) hit me in the face with a pie?

First, let me talk about the general idea of responding to someone's personal ad. The idea, of course, is that they write an ad that appeals to you on some level, and you then respond, hoping to appeal back. You gradually expose (ahem) more of each other until you're ready to hop into bed or have a relationship or whatever it is you both are looking for. At some point in this process, you may want to share a detail about yourself -- perhaps an insecurity, perhaps a kink, perhaps a health issue -- that you know is not the norm.

I recommend that you not open with your most bizarre or extreme characteristic or interest. (I make an exception here for STD disclosure. You should always be up front about that.) But, if you are into a variety of kinky things, and you see an ad from a woman who expresses an interest in kink, you should not necessarily assume that her kink is the same as your kink, or that your most extreme kink will appeal to her. I suggest that you start with what I call mainstream kink: bondage (everybody likes bondage!) or sensation play (feathers and ice cubes) and maybe something more unusual, unless she has specified something already that moves things along a little faster. Especially if this is your first email to a woman, remember that she's likely to be looking for more than just a wild and crazy guy, who might want to cream (pie) in her face.

Now, two notes here: it may well be that cream pie guy was starting with one of his more moderate interests. In that case, he's given me an important piece of information. Additionally, if he's only interested in hooking up with a woman who would let him do this, then he might as well open with it, because if it's a deal breaker, why waste time? On the other hand, of course (and this gets to Zachary's question), I'm more likely to do something strange for a partner who I know and in whom I'm invested than for someone I don't yet know.

In fact, having a partner with a strong interest in something that has never interested me is one of the most surefire ways of getting me to find that thing hot. And, of course, I'm a GGG girl, so unless it actively turns me off, if it's important to my lover, I'm probably going to be willing to try it twice.

As to this specific activity, I'm pretty sure that if I had a partner who really, really wanted to do this, I'd be willing, but I have two small confessions: a) I hate having stuff on my face, especially sticky stuff, so this one wouldn't be on the top of my things to try, especially because b) I've actually had a cream pie-in-the-face experience, so it's not like I'd even get the purity point for it.

Posted by ClueChick at 7:12 PM in misc tips | Permalink | Comments (5)

I am not making this up:

Ok, I saw your post on CL and noticed you're into kinky things...care to elaborate? Myself, I'm into seeing women get hit in the face with cream pies...don't ask me why but it gets me off. So if we were together I'd like to one day hit you in the face with a pie...would that be ok?

Posted by ClueChick at 10:29 PM in actual responses | Permalink | Comments (12)

One of my female readers asks, "The men that have contacted me I'm not interested in. Am I obligated to respond or is it better to just ignore them?"

Ahh, the ongoing question of how to deal with men you're not interested in. This is always a struggle. On the one hand, you don't want to be a jerk and ignore them, but on the other hand, it's awkward to decline them, and ignoring them is less blatant and rude online.

I will admit that I often feel like I'm being rude when I don't respond to someone's approach in response to one of my ads or profiles, but that doesn't stop me from doing it, and I think that's okay (obviously). On those occasions when I've responded to say, "Thanks, but no, thanks," about a quarter of the time I don't hear back, a quarter of the time I get an appreciative response, and half the time I get the guy badgering me to give him a chance. Sometimes it feels worth it to me, and other times not, to take the trouble to respond, but I never feel obligated, and you shouldn't, either.

On the other hand, if a guy has obviously taken a lot of time to write a thoughtful and interesting email, I'm often pleased to be able to say, "Hey, I appreciate the effort you put into your email," even if I don't find him appealing. And, unsurprisingly, the guys who write the good emails are more likely to be the ones who respond positively when I decline.

Posted by ClueChick at 5:59 PM in Q&A | Permalink | Comments (5)

I posted a new ad today, and I just want to share my favorite of the unfortunate responses:

"I'm interested in you!"

That's all. Too bad I can't respond to him with a link to the blog!

On the other hand, I've gotten some promising ones, too, so it's not all bad!

Posted by ClueChick at 4:33 PM in actual responses | Permalink | Comments (1)

You know what's a big let down? When a guy is really fantastic via email -- responds to my ad intelligently and coherently, strikes up an interesting and engaging conversation, proposes a convenient time and place to meet after a reasonable number of emails back and forth -- and then turns out to be a total dud in person.

I suspect that the issue is that online, lots of the people who are shy or less experienced can let go of their inhibitions and be relaxed and interesting (that can certainly be the case for me; I'm not nearly so interesting in person as I seem here!) and then they freeze up in person.

On the one hand, I'm really sympathetic. On the other hand, if you spend our whole first meeting avoiding eye contact and blurting out strange bits of trivia while looking like you'd like nothing more than to escape, it's going to be hard for me to get excited about meeting up with you again.

Try to relax. After all, I'm just a woman. I only bite when asked nicely to do so.

Posted by ClueChick at 11:27 PM in cluechick encounters | Permalink | Comments (3)

A readers asks, "How much emotion should a guy show?"

As always, with this kind of question, I'd like to begin with the caveat that the answer depends on at least three factors: the guy, the person he's dating/fucking/whatevering, and their relationship.

First, the guy: How much emotion is it natural for you to show? I don't really buy the line that men are naturally less emotional than women, though I do see that men are given fewer socially-approved opportunities to show their emotions. I, for example, play my emotions relatively close to my chest. This means that when I'm in a new relationship, the person I'm seeing is unlikely to get to see a whole lot of what's happening under the surface. Furthermore, there are layers of what's happening. If I'm having a good time on a date, I can be happy and smiling and laughing, or I can choose to open up more and talk about how much I enjoy spending time with my date, or open up further still and talk about what I think that might mean for the future of our relationship. All of these are choices about how much emotion and/or internal life to share with a date. Only you know what's comfortable for you.

Second, the person you're dating: I've been on dates with guys who tell me too much too soon, and it's not pretty. I don't want to know about your depression support group on our first date, and I don't want to know that you feel so comfortable with me that you can tell me about your embarrassing thumb-sucking habit over coffee. I do like it when people are comfortable with me, but until I know you better, I don't have enough texture to my sense of you to be able to respond reasonably to early oversharing. This makes me feel awkward, and I hate feeling awkward. On the flip side, if we've been dating for a while and we're still having only superficial conversations about the weather, I'm going to think you're one of "those" guys who never makes room for a real connection, and I'm likely to write you off.

Third, the relationship: Are you casual fuckbuddies? In that case, even after a few months, your relationship isn't going to have the structure to allow for conversations that bare the soul. Just because I've sucked you off doesn't mean I want to hear about how your parents were never at your elementary school plays and how much that hurt you. On the other hand, if you have a relationship that's heading for more significant intimacy, whether friendly or romantic, it'll be weird for you to keep your partner at arm's length and never talk about the things that are on your mind, whether good or bad, whether related to your relationship or simply the day-to-day workings of your life.

Finally, the balance of what to share, in terms of your inner life, with a friend or a lover, is one that many people make unconsciously, and that often works well. Conscious awareness of some of the factors that play into this never hurts, though, right? In general, people take turns opening up and seeing how the other person responds. If I share more about myself and the person I'm talking to doesn't get all weird about it, and then, in turn, opens himself as the conversation continues, we can continue to deepen the intimacy/personal-ness of the conversation until someone takes a step that the other person isn't willing to match. Then you stop there, and either try again to deepen the intimacy at a later date, or the relationship stays at that level. (To be clear: staying at a given level, as long as both people are happy/content there, is a great thing.) Over time, friendships and romantic relationships shift around, sometimes being more and sometimes less intimate. In new relationships, however, you're still working out where your baseline level of shared comfort is. It's up to you, when your partner makes an intimacy-overture, whether you want to meet her or not. And pay attention to whether she meets yours.

Finally, beware of rushing into intimacy before your relationship has the structures to back it up. My one blazingly bad idea of a fling was a case of both of us diving head first into the emotional intensity of the potential of our connection without checking whether our lives could actually fit the shape of the thing together. In the end, we couldn't, and the dramatic backlash of that has fucked up the potential for some steamingly hot sex ever since.

Posted by ClueChick at 10:28 PM in Q&A | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've had plenty of casual encounters, obviously, of various flavors. Some of them have been one night stands, while others have been occasional get-togethers over the course of several months. But none of them, until just now, have been with women.

Oh, sure, I've thought about it, but I've come to the conclusion that casual sex won't work well with the way I interact with women. Normally, if there's a woman I connect well with, I find her attractive, but I'm more interested in making the kind of connection that leads to more serious relationships, whether friendly or romantic.

I've talked (mostly to myself) about the difference between a casual relationship and casual sex. One, after all, can have casual sex within the context of a committed relationship, or a casual relationship that contains very committed sex.

Well, now is my big chance to see how this plays out for me in the context of my expectations about women and how I interact with them: a beautiful woman picked me up at a party last weekend, and though she says she doesn't want to be dating anyone seriously (that sounds familiar), she sure would like to get together for some hot sex with me every now and again. And I find myself hoping we can pull it off.

Stay tuned to see if I can prove myself wrong.

Posted by ClueChick at 3:32 PM in cluechick encounters | Permalink | Comments (0)

A while back, I asked people to ask me things they'd be curious to know about, and Lil wrote wondering about deal breakers in serious and casual relationships. I'll start with talking about deal breakers even before I get to the relationship stage.

There are a few:

I won't fuck guys who are cheating on someone in order to fuck me. It makes me feel yucky and I don't like it. (Yucky is obviously very different from naughty, which is hot.)

I don't do guys who smoke (cigarettes).

I won't even talk about sex with a guy who gives me a hard time about condom use.

It won't get as far as talking about condoms if a guy can't write coherently and in a way that doesn't make me feel like he thinks I'm an object for his pleasure and convenience rather than a person with wants, opinions and interests of my own.

No doubt I could come up with some others, but those are the bare bones ones that leap to mind when I think about the hurdles a guy has to pass before I'll take him seriously as a prospect.

Posted by ClueChick at 10:43 PM in Q&A | Permalink | Comments (3)

So I met a new guy this evening. He pointed out that he first responded to my ad in February and we only just managed to meet today. Sometimes, scheduling for this casual shit is weirdly difficult. But, anyway, we finally met, and it was fun!

This is one of the few guys I've talked to who has posted ads on CL and gotten "a fair number of responses" to them. I told him he should forward them to me so I can see what I think (and validate my advice along the way!) I'll let you know if what he's been writing completely opposes everything I've advised until now.

But I don't think it will, and I'll tell you why. We were talking about how best to respond to ads, and he said, "I've never really understood those guys who just have a generic script. I mean, you read the ad, then you respond to the ad. And to do that, you have to talk about the ad. So the generic thing doesn't work."

This guy totally gets a ClueChick Seal of Approval. The application of that seal involves latex. And possibly lube. It should be great fun.

Posted by ClueChick at 7:58 PM in cluechick encounters | Permalink | Comments (1)

A couple of people have commented, in response to yesterday's post, that my telling this guy that I was thinking about things made for mixed signals, and I'd have to say that's true. While I was, in fact, taking that time to think about things, I'm sure that from his perspective, it was just foot-dragging.

That said, I'd like to talk a bit about psychological manipulation. I don't know if he was pulling some of these tricks intentionally, or if he's just picked them up along the way in life, but there are two little moves he pulled that are enough to set my teeth on edge.

First, when I told him that I was done with things, he said he felt bad about it. This is an obvious plea to the "female as caretaker". Women are socialized to be (please note that I'm not saying this is biological or in any way deterministic) nurturers and peacemakers. We're encouraged to care about how people feel, and to help people feel better when they're sad. Therefore, telling a woman that you feel bad as a result of her actions is a quick way to trigger what may be a totally unconscious desire to solve the problem and make you feel better. Of course, if you actually do feel bad, and you have a relationship where it's appropriate for her to help you feel better, this can be a totally reasonable and non-manipulative way to deal with emotions. In the "breakup" of a casual thing, not so much.

Second, when that didn't work to get me to change my mind, he told me I was being cold. Now, no one wants to be called cold in interpersonal interactions (okay, almost no one), and furthermore, this is another trigger that goes against many women's socialized desire to be warm, friendly, and appreciated. In fact, this is a psychological trick used by abusers of all stripes, from con artists on the streets to lovers: If you tell someone they're doing something that goes against some accepted social norm, they'll go out of their way to prove you wrong. Pulling this card on me has never ended well for my sparring partner, and it definitely closed the door on any questions I might have had about ending this with this fellow.

I don't have a witty closing, here, but I will sum up by saying that passive aggressive is never sexy.

Posted by ClueChick at 4:53 PM in cluechick encounters | Permalink | Comments (1)

I could swear I was going to write something thoughtful and interesting today, but, instead, I am peeved. Sorry.

So, there's this guy who I've seen a few times, starting about a year ago. He was fun, cute, smelled good, but after the first few visits, it became clear that he wasn't all that creative. A nice enough guy, it really didn't seem to occur to him that our get-togethers could use a different script than make out, blow job, fuck, leave. Now, I'm a big fan of these things, but I like to mix it up a bit, so my enthusiasm for him began to wane.

Combine that with the fact that our schedules seemed diametrically opposed and you come up with dates that are hard to arrange and not that inspiring when they happen, anyway. Not a great combination. So a couple of months ago, I told him I was going to take a break from things. He seemed fine with this.

But then, a couple of weeks ago, he started IMing me with some regularity (i.e., 3 or 4 times a week) to see if I wanted to get together. I actually considered it because, hey, sex! But in the end, I decided that I really wasn't interested in going back there with him. Guys take note: part of the reason I wasn't interested is that although I'd told him I wanted to think about things, he kept pestering me to see him while thinking about it, or he'd say, "Okay, well, let me know," and then two days later, poke me again as though I might have forgotten about him. When I said I wanted to think about what I wanted, he said, "Okay, but how 'bout I come over during my lunch hour and we can play while you're thinking?"

His ability to hear and understand the concept of "no" had not, fortunately, come up earlier in our acquaintance. I say fortunately, because he obviously did not actually have that ability, and there are a number of very unforunate ways that it might have come up. On the other hand, if I'd known at the beginning just how no-deficient he was, it would have saved me some aggravation.

Anyway, he IMed me today to suggest we get together, and I told him I'd decided I wasn't interested in pursuing things with him any further. He then took the mature and thoughtful approach of trying to guilt and pressure me into changing my mind. First, he said he felt bad about it. Then, he said he thought we had something real, not just casual. Then, he told me I was being cold. And when I laughed at him for that, he told me I was rude.

It's too bad, too, because I did have fond memories of him. Now, though, I kind of wish I could retroactively reject him from the get-go.

Posted by ClueChick at 5:20 PM in cluechick encounters | Permalink | Comments (4)

One of the most common mistakes guys make in trying to pick up a woman online is that they have crappy pictures. I know that we'd all like to think that we're beyond the superficial is-he-hot level of attraction and interest, but that's bull pucky. I, and every woman out there is just as shallow and superficial as all the guys, and we're looking to pick people up who we find attractive.

Now, unlike in a bar or at the library or in the supermarket, where I can check a guy out, see how he moves, how he flips his hair back, how he gracefully deposits a pound of chicken giblets into his cart, when I'm meeting guys online, my visual first impression is his photograph. Some guys are more photogenic than others, but, really, it's a rare guy who captures my interest enough that I'll go to the effort of meeting him without having a photo exchange first.

In fact, because the two guys I've met without seeing their photos first turned out to be very unappealing, I'm even less likely to try that again now than I was early on in my online adventures, which is too bad.

But I'm not necessarily talking about your looks. I'm talking about what your photo says about you.

If you're a tiny little figure 30 feet away from the camera, your photo is as good as worthless. I can't see what you look like, and I'm now annoyed because I've strained my eyes peering at the screen hoping the picture will zoom in for me. This photo says you don't want me to know what you look like.

If your picture is all grainy and dim, again, I can't tell what you look like. The impression here is that you never leave your house, have taken a bad picture with your cameraphone, and might be a vampire. Not good.

If your picture shows you with stringy hair combed over badly and is also blurry, you're telling me something, even if you don't mean to.

If you want to do the online dating thing, expect to be asked for a picture. And assume that the recipient of the picture will assume that you're sending pictures of you looking your best. Then rethink the picture you're sending in light of what else it might be telling her.

Posted by ClueChick at 8:27 PM in misc tips | Permalink | Comments (0)

Gentlemen:

Advertising yourself as a 25 year old virgin looking for casual sex is not the way to go.

Love,
Cluechick

Posted by ClueChick at 5:57 PM in actual responses | Permalink | Comments (6)

While I was away, B asked, in response to styles of casual sex, whether I have a preference of what style of casual sex to have.

I do, in fact.

I find one night stands tiresome. Because I expect some email exchange before arranging to meet someone, and then a non-sex meet-up first, before even getting around to the fun part, one-offs are a lot of work for not much payoff. Also, although I know some people really get off on the first time with someone new, I find that I have more fun in subsequent encounters. As I get to know a lover better, I relax more, and we become more comfortable with each other, not to mention moving into fun fantasy territory.

I enjoy the light, ongoing thing, where whenever we're both available and horny, we can make plans and have some fun. This is the epitome of no strings attached, for me, because it's very fluid, but by getting together regularly, a light relationship does form, which provides a platform for more adventurous exploration.

These days, however, my favorite is the friends with benefits style arrangement. Here, the sex may be casual but the relationship isn't, and depending on how you set things up, you may arrange playdates ahead of time, or just play it by ear like with the looser arrangement I described above. Mainly what I like about this is the opportunity to plan ahead, which, since my life is pretty full, helps me be sure to make time for sex (I know, it's kind of sad that I have to plan ahead for it, right?) in any given week.

In fact, recently, my sex drive is high enough that I'm considering actually picking up a regular old boyfriend so I can plan on having sex on an even more regular and frequent basis. But that's a whole different post :)

What about you all, readers? Do you have favorite formats of casual (or otherwise) sex?

Posted by ClueChick at 7:17 PM in Q&A | Permalink | Comments (4)