h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Females have it easy.
Some scientists did research where they got men to walk up to a series of women and said "I've noticed you around, I find you very attractive, would you like to sleep with me?". 0% success rate. Same experiment with women chatting up men: 75% success rate.

Lucinda, as one can imagine, is depressed by that...
-Martin

I was told that, in student gatherings at least that approach got the boys a 10% success rate. Maybe we get more discerning as we get older.

But to me that tends to support Hoo's statement that men are 'easily manipulated buffoons with no control over their impulses...' (which in fact I disagree with. Mostly.)

One thing I have discovered is if you are a woman and you make the pass, you give away control. You are never then absolutely certain if you are having sex because the other person thought 'hey! free sex! why not?' or whether you are having sex because they adore you, go weak at the knees when you are nearby, and worship at your shrine.

That uncertainty won't stop me making passes at men, but it does mean I have to be thinking of the mainly physical to do so. And have to report that you can be a woman, make the pass, and STILL be turned down - what does that do for a gal's ego in the light of your statistic, then?

Never an even flow of traffic, on this particular two way street eh?

B

You're probably thinking of the same research and my stats are second-hand...

-Martin

Um. Probably not. At one point I knew the name of the field researcher on that one, he was a friend of one of my boy-friends at Uni.



Earth girls ARE easy, you know!

B

But how did he distinguish between an ironic 'yes' and a genuine one? Did he have to do the deed to make sure?

-Lucinda (wondering why there aren't more research projects along those lines, given typical student hobbies...)

There's always the famous character from *Mash*- 'Melay'. His theory involved saying 'Me lay, you lay.' to every girl he met on the belief that chance would eventually favour him. I think if a woman said that to me I would be to confused to answer....but only for a short while! (Excuse my pig, he's a friend.)

This is indeed a well-informed entry from first-hand experience. Despite the occasional subtle male bashing I actually enjoyed reading it.

I'm not sure how the Editors would look at this, as it's packed with personal opinions on subjects like love, sex, men, morality etc. but at least it's a good and informative read.

I wouldn't call it *bashing* so much as personal experience. The fact that it hasn't been moderated is a credit to H2G2, I just wish more people would read it. to you both once again.

We don't bash - we take the p**s.

In fact what you are seeing is what women say to each other when they talk about men. It isn't all wonderful, but then men are not all wonderful, and women aren't either, for that matter.

Yes - it is an opinion piece. It is also full of practical advice. I ran it past another former-mistress today, and she sat there saying 'yes, yes' and 'yes'. This is the pooled wisdom of common experience.

B

Hey, don't take my reply too serious.

"Practical advice" is exactly how I looked at it and, as I said, it's a good piece.

The "bashing" I referred to isn't undeserved and I can certainly appreciate the cynical undertone. Just wanted to point out that Editors normally want to see something free of personal "bias". Don't see how you could do such a subject without being at least somewhat opinionated, though. The entire piece is written around a personal belief/experience that in order for an adulterous relationship to be succesful there should at least remain a certain "professional" (maybe not a good word in this context) distance. There's a lot to be said for this but it means that the basic premiss for the entry is personal and subjective.

I don't mind, but since it's up for PR - which means you'd like to put it up for editing - I thought it relevant.

Thinking about it I do believe that humour is usually involved in the best *opening gambit* lines. I really haven't heard of succesful *did it hurt when you fell from heaven* type lines unless they are intended as funny. One friend of mine uses poetry but when I've heard him do it it usually ends in laughter.

Well, all other things being equal, if someone makes me laugh on a regular basis they are 75% of the way towards getting me into bed!

(I will regret having said that in the morning - I *know* I will regret having said that in the morning).



Bystander - it is interesting that you said "The entire piece is written around a personal belief/experience that in order for an adulterous relationship to be succesful there should at least remain a certain "professional" (maybe not a good word in this context) distance."

In fact it is fascinating. I have just spent the last year enabling and enforcing codified professional standards within an international consultancy company. I find it interesting that you detect a similar approach rubbing off in my attitudes to my personal life. (It has certainly made me far less tolerant of unprofessionalism and sloppy security standards wherever I find either of them).

a professional woman and amateur mistress called Ben

I guess the same thing applies the other way round : if I can't get her to laugh, chances are pretty slim anything will come of it, or that I would even want to make anything out of it. Even in a long-term relationship, I find that the ability to make each other laugh is among the most important feats.

Regarding your "professional" tendencies, I'm really not in a position to make any connection between your work and private life, since I know (virtually) nothing of both. The only thing I noticed was that you approach the mistress role in a very factual and distanced fashion. Again, there is much to be said for this approach, as it probably will lead to maximal-joy/minimal-pain for everybody.

What I do find interesting is the often occurring discrepancy between theory and praxis. Although you give very solid advice on how to prevent an extra-marital relationship from hurting any of the (3) parties concerned, everyday-life-experience learns that the acting parties (mistress and adulterer) will seldom be able to muster the self-discipline to avoid painful situations. The recipes for disaster are plentiful. Of course, so are the potential rewards.

What I would be interested in finding out - and what I couldn't learn from reading some of your other correspondence : Do you view the mistress role as the ideal love life (getting all the "good" things of a relationship, not being confronted with the bad) or is this simply something you rolled into by chance?

An Innocent but Inquisitive Bystander

Well, it suits me at the moment to have low-stakes, low-maintenance, friendly sex. I am not ready to do the full-on romantic soul-mates-for-this-and-every-lifetime thing again, for a while at least. And I really do hate washing socks.

You say "everyday-life-experience learns that the acting parties (mistress and adulterer) will seldom be able to muster the self-discipline to avoid painful situations" and I agree with you on this.

Having said that, I have discovered that I have the rather chilling ability to stop myself falling in love.

Literally.

There have been two men with whom I started to fall in love in the last couple of years, and because it was not appropriate, and because I caught the emotion early, I managed to prevent myself from doing so. This is actually a pretty scary thing to be able to do. I sill regard both of them as friends, and see each of them every now and again.

I know that not everyone can do this, and it does not work retroactively. I fell for one more than the other, and felt correspondingly more pain.

The repeated admonitions to leave the relationship if the man falls too heavily for you are messages to myself, as much as anything else. I am aware of the dangers of that, and aware of the seductive pleasures of ignoring them.

I can be as crazed by lust as the next woman. But there are in my experiences three organs one can think with. The head, the heart, and the other one. At the moment, I am heartless. Fun, entertaining, kind, compassionate, fabulous company, a loyal and giving friend, but heartless.

Sad, isn't it?

B

You know what, I think I prefer the term *philanderer* to *adulterer* because it doesn't have any religious overtones. Or maybe that it sounds like philanthropy and not adulterated. Makes me feel better about the whole thing...

That's indeed a rare quality and one I'm not sure I'd like to have, although it should prove handy in some situations.

Where does that leave your tendency of "letting chance into my life" ?

Ah! There you have me, Innocent Bystander.

Maybe one day I will find someone who makes me feel wonderful and makes me laugh, who takes care of their own socks, and who is not married.

(I wonder if I will fancy her?)



B

cl zoomer - you may like this: A875757.

Hey, Lucinda, you may like it too, though it is about the former Mr Ben, rather than anyone later in my life.

B

Nice to hear from you again. Went through the poems (some I had already read).

Stay cool, stirred but not shaken.

C