“Ladies’ Man” Episode Pic and Thoughts

Great pic after a Great Show (by Jason DeFillippo)

 So, the art of seduction, huh? Wow, what a topic. It’s more like a continent. This week, we here at the Sex Nerd Sandra podcast release “Ladies’ Man,” a show that was a ton of fun, but barely scratched the surface of the wide world of FLIRT.

The show has inspired me. I am socially awkward like so many I know, especially when attraction is in the mix. WHAT TO DO!? What I always do. Learn, analyze, experiment and report.

So I will be reporting, sometime in the next few months of what I find from my own experiences in the field. It’s time to stop being so awkward and get in the game. To HAVE some game. Because nice, shy people should be able to have game, too. It’s not just reserved for that douche at the local dive.

But for now, this podcast should get the ball rolling. And even though it turned into a mainly Man-on-Woman focused show, these are things we all need to be aware of, no matter the orientation, no matter the gender.

Much Love,

Sex Nerd Sandra

Posted in sex

7 thoughts on ““Ladies’ Man” Episode Pic and Thoughts

  1. Your presentation at Mindshare LA last month is now up on YouTube, should you wish to see it: http://youtu.be/H1bu6oonNX4 I figured you might like to see how well you actually did – the audience totally loved you & you came off as very poised & able to roll with the flow. Which is no doubt the result of working really hard at this – as they say, it takes a lot of work to make it look this effortless. Congrats!

  2. This was the first episode of the podcast that totally turned me off, big time.

    Apart from anything else, though, your audience member who was the Nice Guy? Should read this:

    http://www.wired.com/underwire/2010/05/alt-text-nice-guys-guide/

    Guys who go on and on and on about how Nice they are and how girls don’t like nice guys and only like jerks and that’s why they can’t get laid? It is SO OFF-PUTTING. It’s insulting to women. (Being told I only like jerks? Super insulting. I don’t only like jerks but by the same token there is a lot more a guy needs for me to be attracted to him than just being nice–that is not the only personality trait out there. They need to be nice+.) It makes the guy sound like he feels that he’s *entitled* to sex just for being a decent human being and that he deserves any woman in his life just for being a good person. No one is entitled to sex with a particular person, and giving off the vibe that you’re all embittered about how you are entitled to sex but still aren’t getting it? Turn off. Major turn off.

    There’s also a pretty large overlap between guys who talk a lot about how nice they are and guys who also wouldn’t give the time of a day to a woman who is not conventionally attractive but who is just as nice as they are. Wanting to be appreciated for who you are and not what you look like is a two-way street, gentlemen.

    1. Hi, thank you for your comment. I can tell this episode hit on some frustrating stuff. I would say that I know the person who asked that question personally, and he definitely deserves some sex and likes women of all types and looks. And I think everyone deserves an awesome sex life if they desire such. I see you’re point about Nice: it is an adjective, not a destination.

  3. I agree with samarakind – this episode was off-putting to say the least. It was filled with ignorant support of sex-roles, which I view as sex-negative. Pinning men into the role of pursuer, constantly afraid of rejection, and women into a role of constantly and subtly dropping hints of interest in a pursuer (and never worrying about rejection) is over generalization and harmful. Sandra, your story about consciously avoiding touching your hair reveals these sex roles and their negative effects. Should all mundane movements of women be subjected to a man’s over-interpretation of how much she want’s to have sex with him?

    The broad generalizations in sex-specific behaviors and desires are nearly completely unfounded, and are unappreciated and ignorant in the presented context. For example, stating that evolutionary psychology supports that ‘women can’t defend themselves and, therefore, are more aware of behavior indicating danger’ is ridiculous. If it were presented as a joke, pointing out the utter ignorance of that level of sexism, I think it would be okay, but it is presented as truth. Perhaps I misinterpreted some of the sarcasm, but since the episode is sprinkled with real psychology (i.e., an inter-causal link between feelings and body language/movement), the “advice” provided does not support a facetious tone.

    At the moment, I don’t really have any advice to address this stuff, so that you can avoid it in future episodes (if, of course, you agree, in part or wholly with my criticisms). However, I want to end my comment on a more positive note, since I support your podcast’s goal (i.e., building a sex-positive culture), and I usually like listening. So I guess, keep up the good work…but keep it good, don’t slide into a negative, gender-role driven morning FM talk show…. maybe be more skeptical of some of the generalizations and comments during the podcast.

    1. Yes, you identify some features of the Ladies’ Man episode. My guest comes from a certain school of thought and we discussed that POV. In future flirt-focused eps I plan on exploring other POV’s, including my own. I think you will enjoy those more. Thank you for your passion and care!

      1. Do you have an opinion on the role that your guests’ POV play in sex-positivism?

        Given the emphasis on gender roles and clear sexism, I found it negative. I see these things as hindering sex-positivism, particularly because of the wide-ranging implications for gender roles as perceived in our culture now; some think women must dress and act certain ways so as to not ‘force’ men into succumbing to a sinful behavior – you know, because ALL behavior exhibited by a women is to be interpreted on the great scale of how much she wants a particular man.

        I realize there are other POV’s/schools of thought, and I appreciate that you can bring them to the table, in front of an audience, and record them (THAT’s the good work I’m talking about), but by failing to criticize them either on the podcast itself, or in the comments here (I found your reply ambiguous, at best), I don’t think you are successfully promoting your sex-positive goal (or maybe that’s not a goal, and I just made it up). All you have to do, say during the podcast, is state that, ‘no, women aren’t helpless creatures that have behaviorally evolved to pick up on subtly body language in men that may indicate that they are about to rape them, and flirtation advice cannot be based on that premise’.

        If you didn’t/don’t know that science more-or-less supports that there are few, hard-wired, behavioral differences between men and women, that’s fine…. just say so, maybe I can find a book if you’re interested.

        You can even agree with the POV presented in this episode – don’t worry, I won’t start a ‘flame war’ or whatever the Internet lingo is now-a-days. Either way, please make your opinion clear… it’s killin’ me – condemn that POV or support it!

Nerd out here & at the Sex Nerd Sandra facebook page!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s