ClueChick: real clues from a real chick

There are multitudinous formats in which to have casual sex.

There's the ever-popular one night stand. You meet, you fuck, you kiss goodbye. Maybe you know each other's names and maybe you don't. Maybe you even know the right names. Or maybe not. This can be hot, but it's always superficial.

There's the newly-popular friends with benefits,. This is a fluidly casual sexual arrangement in the context of a non-casual (or not necessarily casual) ongoing friendship or relationship. This is one of my favorite arrangements, because it allows for the development of a connection and trust that can bring the sexual connection into more interesting territory.

There's the whenever-we're-in-town fuckbuddy, where you don't hang out together, but when your schedules overlap, you hook up.

There's the nooner fuckbuddy, or the ego-boost fuckbuddy, or the... well, the list goes on, needless to say.

And there are plenty of other ways to have casual sex, whether the whole relationship is casual or just the sex. Some people can enjoy any of these sorts of sex, and other folks only like one style or another. But I always feel funny talking about casual sex as one monolithic concept, because the truth is, it comes in as many forms as the people who enjoy it.

Posted by ClueChick at 9:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I recently had a conversation with someone who said that she doesn't believe in love anymore, and that's why she's moved on to casual sex.

This made me sad. For me, casual sex and committed love are not contrary, not mutually exclusive, not somehow in competition in my life. In fact, part of the reason that I can be so comfortable with casual sex as a part of my life is that I see it as being more or less unrelated to love. (Although there can be love involved with casual sex. That's another post, though.)

I strongly believe in love, whatever it means to say I believe in something that's demonstrably present. Love is a powerful force, whether it be platonic or romantic.

For some people, casual sex may well be exclusive to a love-type scenario, but it's not a necessity. Some people have casual sex outside of an existing committed relationship (some with "permission", some without), some only have casual sex when they're single. But love and sex don't run along the same axis. There are areas of overlap, certainly, but they don't go hand-in-hand.

Posted by ClueChick at 7:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

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 | Permalink | Comments (5)

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 | Permalink | Comments (8)

I'm going to take a few moments away from ClueChick's excellent advice on content to say something about style. Specifically, on the importance of writing with good use of grammar, punctuation and spelling.

Now, I'll admit right off the bat that I'm a grammar snob. I raise my eyebrows at misuse of "who" and "whom", and misplaced apostrophes really make me lose my appetite for love. But that isn't what I'm here to talk about. Not every net.slut cringes when someone says "your so hot". But I bet they all cringe when they get a message that screams "I couldn't even be bothered to take a few seconds to proofread my message!"

Let's look at some examples:

"u can email me at [...] i usually do not find unies and lingere sexy but your bosy suit is ok..." etc. (It got me pretty hot to be told my look is "ok" but that's a rant for another day)

"Ur are an interesting personality...I can't beliee wee match in our intrests.. I certainly like to fuck you hard as I can.....rip those clothes on..and taste that sweet pussy of urs...inf interested let me know..."

Now first, I think lots of women who aren't grammar snobs think "u r 2 hot" kind of writing is eyerollworthy. But let's move on to "unies" "beliee" and "bosy" (which took me several seconds until I realized he was talking about the body suit I was wearing in the pic.) What do these tell me other than the fact that he didn't consider me worth to effort to care about his first impression, to take the few seconds it would take to fix stupid errors. If he thinks "casual" means "not worth any effort" I'm not anticipating his sexual skills to be up to par either.

Oh, and please avoided the dreaded run-on sentence and upper case letters (WHICH ARE SHOUTING!)

"i love to please so cum and let me please you 29 years old 5'9" big love sex especially oral sex so if you want a man who enjoys taking his time to really get you off as much as possible then get in touch thick headed uncut cock"

"LOVE YOUR PICS YOUR JUST MY TYPE..I CAN MAKE YOU CUM AS MCH AS U WANT..CALL ME [...] OR IM [...] CANT WAIT TO INTRODUCE YOU TO MY BIG COCK"

Really, do these guys expect me to want to MEET them???

- Sapiophile

Posted by sapiophile at 8:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Once upon a time, it was somewhat uncommon for people to have pictures of themselves in digital formats. Even if you had email and chat systems, you might not have easy access to a scanner or a digital camera, and you actually had to go out of your way to get a picture of yourself up online.

These days, you may have to go out of your way, but most people have lots of digitized pictures of themselves, and so the expectation is that you do, too. I can't imagine trying to navigate the waters of online dating if I didn't have a photograph to send somewhere between first contact and first face-to-face meeting. If you don't have one, I can't recommend highly enough that you get one.

It is not enough, however, simply to have a photograph. It really ought to be a good one. People will typically assume that the photo you send when you're trying to hit it off with someone is a photo that shows you in what you think is a good light. If the photo sucks, they will be assuming that this is a good picture of you -- you looking your best, or nearly so -- so if it's a terrible picture ... well, you get the idea.

The picture should look like you, and the current you. If you've changed a lot in the last six months, you should have a picture from more recently than six months ago. If you haven't changed in two years, a two-year-old photograph is just fine. When in doubt, ask a friend.

It should be a reasonably good photograph. It doesn't have to be 800 ultra-super-megapixels, but it shouldn't be blurry, fuzzy or otherwise difficult to make out what you look like. It should also be bigger than a thumbnail. I don't want to have to use a magnifying glass to try to figure out what you look like.

On the question of headshots vs. full-body shots, some people feel very strongly that you should include a full-body picture. I actually don't care so much about that, and between a picture where I can see a body well or one where I can see the face clearly, I'll take the face.

And, finally, if you're going to be demanding about the photographs your potential date sends you, you'd damn well be ready to pony up your own portfolio, possibly even before getting pushy to see more from her.

Posted by ClueChick at 7:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The first thing we have to agree on here is this: Women are actual living, breathing, thinking human beings. If you place us on a pedestal, we are almost bound to fall off it and land on your head, perhaps breaking your neck in the process. If you treat us like shit, you'll be lucky if the worst you end up with is some bad smelling shoes.

Lots of men seem to experience women as a whole different species. They find us weird, unfathomable and mysterious. We're certainly not real people so much as somewhat bizarre quasi-people.

*BZZT*

You've got to get over that. Men and women may have differences, and they may be real, but at root, we're all people, just like each other. Seeing members of the opposite sex as whole people, worthy of respect, will help in all your interactions.

You all may remember that guy with the kickass ad who I wanted to fuck. One of the things I loved about his ad is that he took the time to point out that he's respectful. What this means is that he sees a woman as a full person, who will have opinions and desires, and with whom he'll be making a connection (even if a casual one) when they hook up. That makes me hot.

I don't want to be with a guy who's going to see me as a cardboard cutout, or as a porcelain doll. I want to be with someone who sees me and respects me as a person. I'd rather be "one of the guys" if that's what it takes than an incomplete idea. If you can show me that you see women in a real way -- usually by interacting with me through email in a way that feels complete and honest -- that's way, way more likely to get my attention than describing some hot sex scene with a fantasy woman who's more like a blow-up doll.

Posted by ClueChick at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Let's talk about desperation a bit more. I'm going to assume that I don't need to expand on why desperation is best avoided, both for internal (personal state of mind) reasons and external (being attractive to other people) ones, right? If I'm wrong on that assumption, someone send me an email and I'll go into more detail.

Desperation is unattractive in everyone in nearly every circumstance. The only times it makes sense and might be useful are times of acute crisis: I'm desperate to save my cat from the burning building, say. If you are desperate to hear back from the woman with the perfect personal ad, you're setting yourself up for disastrous failure.

What desperation signals is a need for external support for a lack that would be better served by a solid internal foundation.

What does that mean?

It means that being attractive starts inside you, with your attitude, your confidence, and your comfort in who you are.

We have all experienced encounters with people who were desperate for attention, and unless we're stalkers who like to create unhealthy obsessions and dependence, we find that overwhelming and unappealing. This is especially true for casual sex, as even a hint of desperation makes me back way off, thinking that with that need for hand-holding, this guy isn't going to be able to keep it light at all.

We've also all met those people who, objectively speaking, aren't drop-dead gorgeous, and, in fact may simply be okay-looking, but who somehow manage to present a special something, that certain "oomph" that makes people sit up and pay attention. That can't be faked.

This all goes back to being solidly comfortable with who you are, knowing who you are, and knowing what you want. If you're looking for a partner or lover to fill up an empty space in you, then you're headed for a codependent dynamic at best. Some people look for that, I'm sure, but I recommend filling your own needs and then teaming up with someone else who's hot and appealing.

If you're desperate and you know it, you're in better shape than many, who seem to think that clinging, needy interaction will draw someone in. Start by building up your own solid foundation so that you're not so teetery, and you'll be in much better shape to attract someone interesting.

Posted by ClueChick at 8:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One of the many damaging myths that our society passes on to boys and girls -- and which we then incorporate as women and men -- is that men want sex all the time, and women don't want sex almost ever. "Not tonight, dear, I have a headache." This sucks. Get over it.

Men, this means for you that when you're responding to a woman's ad on Craig's List or any other personals/dating site, you don't have to trick her into wanting sex. Especially if she's posting in the casual encounters section or has said something in her profile about wanting something lighter or less committed, she's probably telling the truth.

This is why responding to my CE ad by talking about how what you really want is to get married is going to mean that I will not, in turn, respond to you. No, it's true, I probably also will not respond to the guy who says he just wants to get together tonight, but there's a lot of room for compromise between those two positions. I encourage you to suss it out.

Women like sex. Sex is fun! We enjoy it! We may, in fact, be slightly more particular about the sex we get than many men are, but even on that one I'm not sold; I think that's something that varies a lot from individual to individual, irrespective of sex or gender. Men cheat themselves and the women they fuck when they buy into the myth that women have to be talked into a roll in the hay.

So, men, stop trying to trick women into your bed.

And while I'm at it, women, stop playing hard to get. This isn't helping anyone.

Posted by ClueChick at 9:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I said on Saturday, with regards to women who don't respond to men who they think are out of their league that it's not that "I don't think unattractive people should get laid but because I don't have a lot of patience for people who rate themselves so poorly."

This isn't related to gender -- my views on this apply irrespective of your sex or sexual orientation. If you think that someone is out of your league, they are. If you think they're in your league, you may or may not be correct, but at least you have a shot. That lack of confidence is a killer, and it will automatically limit your options, not because of anything about how to look or how smart you are but because of how you present yourself.

People who are insecure tend to apologize for themselves, talk down about themselves and generally act self-effacing. I hate that. Truly, I have very little patience for it, whether in friends, lovers or random hookups. You don't have to be in People Magazine's top 50 beautiful people list in order to land in bed with someone, even someone very attractive, because there's a lot more to how attractive someone is than their physical beauty.

Women who are flat-chested, fat, very tall, without a waist, or any number of other characteristics that are socially less desirable as traits of physical beauty will find that there are men out there who are into whatever they have going. Trust me on this. Men who are short, scrawny, weak, fat, or hairy will also find that there are women who like their look. You don't need everyone to think you're the bees knees, just a few here or there. You will increase your odds significantly if you're not constantly apologizing through word, gesture and deed for being imperfect.

If you're looking for that external validation of your worth, you're doomed. I have slept with some guys who were not that much to look at but whose attitude was beautiful. This even matters for a hookup, because a man who carries himself with confidence is going to be more fun to fuck than the one who thinks it would be better if we turned the lights out.

I don't fit the Hollywood-dictated standard of beauty, by a long shot, but I've slept with men who are model-beautiful because I have confidence in myself, both physically and as a package.

Yes, being physically attractive is a bonus and makes life easier in all kinds of ways, including picking people up, but it's not the be-all and end-all unless you treat it that way.

Posted by ClueChick at 7:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When you're trying to pick up a woman on the internet, it's easy to come to think that it's not important to tell the truth about every little thing. If my ad says I'm looking for someone who likes to go to fancy restaurants, it's no skin off your teeth to say that you do, even if your idea of a fine dining experience is the quickie Chinese takeout joint around the corner, right?

Except, when you start out telling lies, that doesn't give you a lot of options down the road, if we hit it off. Suddenly, I want to go try the tasting menu at the French bistro around the corner and you'd really like to order a pizza. We want different things! So, now, you can do what? You can come clean, explain that you'd fudged your self description a bit and aren't so much the foodie after all, or you can keep going with the lie and pretend it doesn't drive you bugfuck to spend $100 for a series of tiny plates with weird silverware when you could be at the pub having a beer for $5.

I'm not going to tell you that you should tell the truth because it's the Right Thing to Do, though I think it is (and I'll discuss that in a later entry). Instead, I'm advocating the Truth as Ultimate Laziness approach: It's always easier to tell the truth. You don't have to make anything up. You don't have to keep track of the things you've made up. You don't have to pretend to be someone you're not. And you don't end up having to deal with people who aren't the kind of people you want to spend time with.

Every relationship involves compromises, and telling the truth from the get-go won't stop that from being the case. But, it will give you a firm ground from which to approach those compromises.

If I post an ad looking for a casual hookup, and I say I'm looking for a guy who can recite Shakespeare to me while we fuck, but you've never bothered with any of that nancy-pants crap... well, you can make believe that you're a big fan and that it'll make you hot to do it, and that might get you in the door, if you can pull off the make-believe well enough. But once you're in the door, it's going to become pretty clear that you weren't, in fact, on the same page, and that's going to piss me off. Furthermore, are you actually going to have a good, hot time while trying to fool me into thinking you're into iambic pentameter as much as I am?

It's easy to think that it doesn't matter much when you're looking for casual sex, that as long as you get laid, it's all good. Lying, however, probably won't get you laid, and it will get you blackballed. I share the names, photographs and email addresses of the obvious posers with my friends who also enjoy casual sex, and they do the same with me. We don't really want to waste our time, you see, because we want to get laid, preferably with someone who will get off as much from reciting Shakespeare as we get off listening to it.

Starting out with the truth is smart, and it will make your life easier. Maybe you don't like Shakespeare, but you do like talking while fucking. You could lead with that, and explain why you think I'd find that even hotter than listening to some dead guy's poetry. Maybe I'll agree with you, and we'll both have a blast. That sounds better, doesn't it?

Posted by ClueChick at 1:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

- Show me you've read my ad. This will help me to know that if I write you back, I'm not wasting my time on someone who's going to say, four emails down the line, "Oh, whoops, I'm not into that whacky midget threesome you mentioned, after all. Sorry."

- Show your interest in the person who posted the ad, not just any generic chick who's willing to respond to your email. No woman wants to be wanted just for her pussy.

- Be funny. Funny is always good. Tell a relevant joke, or just take a joking tone. If you can't be funny, or if your sense of humor is questionable, this item is optional.

- Be bright. Okay, not all women are as into smarts as I am, but if you're smart, show it off, because it can't hurt. Don't be snobby about it, but being smart is an asset, and it's worth highlighting.

- Make references to things I said in my ad. This is a no-brainer. It should also make your life easier, since it gives you a bit of a template in responding to an ad. I said I like skiing? Talk about how you learned to ski in college, but it turns out you hated it because you ran into a tree. You don't have to like all the same things, but show that you can relate to me regardless.

- Tell me about yourself. Even though a lot of what a woman writes in her ad will be about herself, typically, she also wants to know about you. How else will she gauge if you're the type of person she'll find interesting?

- Ask me questions to engage me and give me something to start my email to you. This one is purely selfish, but I'll let you in on a secret: If I get 100 responses to my CL post, and 10 of them are interesting enough for me to want to write back, the first ones to hear from me will be the ones who make it easy by asking me questions and drawing me out.

- Fit at least half of the categories I put in my ad. I put them there for a reason, not just because I like making shopping lists. Yes, some of them will be flexible, but if I say I'm looking for a regular thing with a non-smoker who likes to go bowling and get head in the backseat of his car before driving out to the beach for a swim, and you're looking for a one-off with someone who will go to the cigar bar with you before hitting it in the back alley, guess what?

Posted by ClueChick at 10:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The first thing to know when you’re looking to pick up a woman on Craig’s List, or anywhere, really, is that you’re playing a game. Even if you don’t think you’re playing a game, you are. So you might as well figure out the rules you’re playing by. The challenge is that not everyone plays the same game. Lots of people get bitter about this – I can’t say how many men have responded to my ads by saying, “I don’t play games, so you shouldn’t, either.� That’s simply not realistic. The very act of placing an ad on a personals site – any personals site – is the opening move in a game. When you write me an email, you’re engaging me and getting the game going.

Calling it a game doesn’t mean it’s not real. Your game doesn’t have to be faked. It doesn’t have to be deceptive, manipulative or ugly. Some people will object to calling it a game at all, thinking that terminology implies putting on an act rather than being sincere. This couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, I will never advocate being fake. There’s nothing worse, in the game of picking people up, than putting on a false front, because that gives you nowhere to go. If you’ve lied about yourself or what you want in order to get the girl, then the girl has gone for someone who isn’t you, and she’s interested in something that you don’t really want. Way to go.

Thinking about the pickup as a game may help you not to take it too seriously, which is important, because your odds aren’t good. When I post an ad, either in casual encounters or in w4m, I get over 100 responses, and the men who will hear back from me are those who can set themselves apart, catch my eye, and engage me in conversation. This is the game: how you set yourself apart, make yourself interesting, and draw me out. Approach it playfully and with good humor.

As in any game, you win some and you lose some, and that’s just the way it goes. If you’re looking for external validation in hookups, CL will burn you the hell out. Anytime you’re looking for your own self worth through other people, it’s bound to go badly, and that’s true whether you’re online or in person.

You don’t have to put on an act, and if you do put on an act, in my observation, it won’t hold together long enough for you to get into my bed. The game isn’t about faking it; it’s about figuring out what you want, finding someone who wants the same thing, and managing to put the two together.

My best advice is this:

Be yourself, be confident in yourself and who you are. Don’t put on some shitty act and try to be who you think she wants you to be. Just be real.

I know lots of women say this, and I’ve heard men say that’s not what we really want, because they’ve tried it and it doesn’t work for them. Here’s my response to that: First, if you’re trying to be real so someone will be into you, you are, by definition, not being real. Second, the reason you should be real isn’t so you can get chicks; it’s so you can be happy and complete in yourself. Third, once you’re happy and complete in yourself – really, truly, deeply – being real won’t be effort, and you’ll find picking up women will be both less important and much easier.

Posted by ClueChick at 8:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)