From: pope@physics.su.OZ.AU (The Nightstalker)
Subject: Re: seduction
Organization: School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 03:41:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.220843.15557@onetouch.COM> jpalmer@onetouch.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>
>     For me, actually, ANYTHING that can evoke feeling is good. . . I play by
>feeling.  Simon and Garfunkel are good, especial on a first listen to someone
>with poetry in their soul.

"Tis true, there is a certain feeling to alot of their music."

>    The Indigo Girls are also pretty good, and I have several mix tapes now
>that I sometimes use. . . and I think I've used Sinead O'Conner. . . But I
>won't use her on any good catholics anymore. . . 

"Tsk, tsk...!"

>    I dunno Nightstalker. . . if you've got a lady, that's the BEST time to do
>a 'seduction', depending on your use of the word.

"Well that is the point, for me the word seduction has conatations of bending
will for your own fulfilment.  I also find that the mood sets itself with my
love, if we are both looking to meet one anothers needs, trying to reach the
other person where they are.  Moods are hard to 'create' and these created moods
are often false."

>    For me, an initial seduction is a setting the stage for emotional
>involvement, forcing events to bring us to a head; either we try to be together
>or we let ourselves fall apart. . . this level of seduction is simply a means
>of forcing her to see me as a sexual being, and past that, may have no sexual
>content.  (ie, an 'initial seduction' is where I force her to see me as a
>possible lover, even if we do nothing more than kiss and hug in the
>relationship)

"I see, I don't quite know whether that is how I do things, but quite possibly.
Many relationships start (the best ones I think), with a friendship.  I find
that I am attracted to someone on some sort of personnal level, and then begin
to notice how they look, and how who they are inside relates to how they look.
I like to be attracted in a holistic way."

>     Again, for me, subsequent seductions are simply an attempt to get us to
>fall in love all over again; with or without sex, the seduction itself is the
>fun part.  (Not that *I* am knocking sex, heaven forbid!)

"I should hope not!!"

>    Maybe there's a better word for this than 'seduction'. . . but I haven't
>found one.
>(Hmmm.  One book I read mentioned that the author told a female friend that he
>was going to do a chapter on seduction and arousal. She said 'good, which are
>you going to cover first?'  Until that time, he thought they were one and the
>same.  THIS shows what I'm trying to explain about seduction.  Seduction has a
>bad rep anymore.)
>
"Most interesting, thanks."

The Nightstalker....

--
Mick Pope,                                          |      "On Christ the
Sir Frank Packer Dept of Theoretical Physics,   ----|----   solid rock I
School of Physics, University of Sydney,            |       stand, all other
Sydney, Australia, 2006.  (02) 692 3241             |       ground is sinking
                                                    |       sand." - C. Wesley
Jesus is the reason for the season.                 | 
And the comment for today is:  
          
"There is a fine line between clever and stupid."  -  Spinal Tap