Sunday, April 20, 2008

"Romance & Seduction Contain No Price Tags"

I am not exactly sure when it became assumed that romance and seduction requires a lot of money to pull off. I have my suspicions as to how the “rumor” got started though.

Do you know where this entire concept of “dating” comes from? If you own a copy of my course "The Fire of Seduction" you have already heard the following story, but I want to share it with any readers who are not familiar with it.

Its beginnings come from way back in the 1100’s, in France. Tis true, my friend! There was a Queen named Eleanor of Aquitaine and she had a court. The Queen’s court was the hip cool club to be in back in that time period. It was seen as a court of luxury, elegance, and sophistication. Typically, the trends started in Eleanor’s court were often adopted and imitated all through Europe. One thing in particular,was what resulted from a “trial” she held one day. Eleanor had grown tired of the brutish ways her Knights behaved around the women of the court. So, she set about changing that. She held a mock trial, in which the Knights were the ones on “trial”, while the women of the court were the “jury.” Eleanor taught the Knights proper techniques for how the women of the court were to be treated. As the women sat upon elevated platforms, one by one the Knights would recite poetry to the women and act out the techniques they had been taught. The Knights were then judged by these “jury” of women. Only those Knights, who were deemed to have done well, would be permitted to take these women to festivals.And that, in case you were not already aware, is where the term“courting” comes from.

Add to this little history lesson the fact that up until the early part of last century, nearly all women either made little or no money on their own. Hell, it was not even until the 19th Amendment was passed less than a hundred years ago that women in America were even recognized as having the right to vote!Then, of course, you have the interesting origins of why marriage was created. The Cliffs Notes version is that it was a property issue. The reason why a woman changes her last name in marriage is so she becomes the legal “property” of the man; which I find ironic whenever I meet a married feminist.

I brought all of this up NOT to instigate a cyber riot, but rather to point out that the reasons we have these courting/dating rituals is due to social and economic climates that areincredibly outdated. Someplace in there, the belief got started thatromance is found in candlelit restaurants, but not in the barbecue joint down the street. A woman’s girlfriend will ask her, “So where did he take you for dinner on your date?” As if the quality of the date lay in the meal costing more than it takes to fill the tank of a Boeing747. It should only be about how well the woman connected with the man on the date.

Some weeks back, I was hanging out with some friends of both genders. One of my male friends mentioned having had a nice time on his date. One of my female friends asked him where he took his date. He told her “Chili’s.” My female friend responded by saying,“You took her to ‘Chili’s’ for your first date? What a cheap bastard you are. You’re supposed to take her someplace really nice for a first date.” Naturally I had to stick my nose into the conversation and so I said, “That makes as much sense as saying the woman is supposed to give the guy head on the first date.” It is as if the quality of romance and seduction is valued through the expense instead of the connection between two people. Funny how a woman is viewed poorly if she sleeps with a guy on the first date, and a guy is viewed poorly if he does not take the woman to an expensive restaurant on the first date. Even more hilarious, is that these views come mostly from the people who were not on the date in the first place!!! Perhaps now you understand one of the reasons why I do not date in the traditional sense.

Yet, ask a woman who feels she and a guy really connected on their date, and she will feel just as romanced having had sandwiches at the park as she would of having had lobster at The Tillerman. The reason why she will feel that way is because of the quality of the man she had shared that time with. So I say “Piss off, mate!” to the idea that romance and seduction require an impressive price tag. If price is an indication of true romance, then women who have “A” cup breasts should be considered men, and guys who are less than 6 feet tall should be considered women.After all, I find it to be of equal levels of absurdity.

Now I know someone, someplace, is reading this and saying, “If a man is wealthy, it is in poor taste to take a woman to a cheap restaurant.” As if she had earned the right to a nice meal, just because he’s wealthy.To such a person, I reply, “I think that is as ridiculous as saying that if a woman with an amazing body is on a date, it is in poor taste to not let the man on the date with her see her naked.” After all, both earned their attributes, so should it not be up to them to decide how to share it? I personally feel that the quality of the interaction is most important. Would you find more value in an expensive meal with crappy company, or a modest meal with amazing company?

When a man and a woman can really connect, when they can “click” on a deep emotional level, it can feel like a million bucks! To me, spending large amounts of money should be used on natural expressions, not out of obligations. A man is no more obligated to shell out hundreds of dollars on a date, any more than a woman is obligated to put her nipples in his mouth on that date. You may be wondering why I keep using sexual comparisons. Well, think about it! A man’s currency is what is in his wallet, and a woman’s currency is her body. A man typically uses his money, or the implied spending of his money, to influence a woman to do what he wants. Just like a woman typically uses her body, or the implied use of her body, to influence a man to do what she wants. It just makes sense to me to use what logically matches! I am in no way saying that a man should never spend more abundantly when romancing a woman. I am simply saying that what a man spends should not be a reflection of what is considered romantic, nor of what his level of appreciation is toward the woman.

When you really think about it, the only reason an expensive meal is thought to be romantic, is because of the way it feels to dine in such a place. No matter how you look at it, it all comes down to the emotional satisfaction of the encounter. Since it is all about the emotional encounter, it should be exempt from having a price tag. There is a story I was told by a woman named Edith a number of years ago. It cements my point quite well. When Edith was in High School, she met Walter. One day, as Edith approached her front porch, she saw this huge cardboard heart leaned up against the front door. On it was a message from Walter that read, “This was the biggest one I could find, but it barely expresses what you mean to me. Love, Walter.”After high school and when Walter returned from Army Basic Training,they got married. For nearly 60 years, Walter would periodically place little paper hearts in locations he knew Edith would find them. On each one of them, he would always write, “Add this one to the collection.”When Walter passed away, Edith took that huge cardboard heart that had been well taken care of ever since she got it as a teenager, and she buried it with Walter. And on it she wrote, “Hold on to this for me, I will come get it from you soon. Love, Edith.”

Decide for yourself; was that not one of the most romantic things you have ever read, or was Walter a cheap bastard for giving Edith paper hearts instead of lobster dinners?

Be well, my friend, and Live Unleashed!

No comments: