Towards A Don-Juanology

Like most other things, seduction skills ought to follow a “standard distribution”, with most people in the middle, smaller numbers to the one or other side, and a very few really extreme cases. It is the latter, however, that can teach us the most. Casanova was, for example, said to be able to get any woman into bed in fifteen minutes flat; and I have heard of a modern equivalent, who could walk into a restaurant where a strange woman was dining with her husband, order her to come home with him, and leave with her. Such a specimen ought to be properly studied, either in captivity or in the wild.

Do the Don Juans succeed through looks, pheromones or social techniques? Is there a genetic basis? Are pheromones specific to the target individual or is there a master chemical key that will turn any woman on? If the answer is social technique, then is there, as rumoured, a quite simple recipe? How do such social techniques interact with the women’s public personae? Do the women feel less guilty when seduced by one of the Great Masters, as opposed to by some ordinary schmoe? In fact, is a woman’s alleged attack of conscience anything more than the realisation that she has cheated with an inferior specimen? What is the Great Masters’ failure rate, and what are the characteristics of the “ones who get away”? None of these questions can ever be researched ethically, because all we would get would be the standard bullshit, the great and thumping lies that women continuously tell themselves and the rest of the world about whom they would go to bed with, why and on what terms.

What we badly need, therefore, is an Institute for Unethical Sexual Experiments (I-USE) that would conduct empirical studies of human seduction and seducability, in order to find, chart and even bottle the secrets of the great seducers. Entirely unsuspecting female subjects would have the world’s best pick-up artists unleashed upon them, and later be encouraged to comment on the experience by researchers in disguise. If they refuse to admit that the incident happened at all, they can be confronted with secret surveillance footage.

It is known anecdotally that “all the nice girls love a bastard”, but this has never been scientifically tested. The Institute for Unethical Sexual Experiments could do this by hiring actors to play not only bastards, but different kinds of bastard, and unleash them on the unsuspecting and unconsenting female subjects to see who bites.

The Institute for Unethical Sexual Experiments might also create some three-handed games. How do women actually react when a physically or otherwise “superior” man wishing to carry her off intimidates their husband, lover or date on the restaurant terrace? How they say their partners should react can be correlated with what they actually do when the partners react in the manner they claim to want. In what circumstances do they become complicit, transfer their allegiance, and justify this switch in terms of their partner’s unsatisfactory response, for example complaining that he is too passive or too proprietorial?

Posted on December 6, 2012 at 11:36 by Hugo Grinebiter · Permalink
In: WHAT WOMEN WANT, Unethical Sexual Experiments

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments via RSS

  1. Written by The Ghost in the Machine
    on December 6, 2012 at 22:02
    Permalink

    I think the idea that there is one man or one formula that works on all women is preposterous, just as the opposite is hardly true. Nice myth, but it doesn’t stand up in practice.

  2. Written by Hugo Grinebiter
    on December 7, 2012 at 09:44
    Permalink

    I suggest you tell this to the women who are forever lecturing us on what “women” want, invariably meaning themselves, and who concomitantly abuse us for having believed what the last woman to speak on behalf of her entire sex told us. They certainly believe that there is a single truth.

    I expect that the Institute would discover some common patterns plus some outliers who don’t fit anything.

Subscribe to comments via RSS

Leave a Reply