In the end, how much is erotic capital really worth?
In yesterday’s column critiquing Catherine Hakim’s celebration of women’s erotic capital, I shared an anecdote about a student whom I called “Allee.” Allee was a young woman who could have been one of Hakim’s disciples, and in my previous piece, I shared the story of how I challenged her in a professional, responsible, and—I hope—kind way. I didn’t respond to her flirtation, and earned her trust as a result.
But as I’ve written before, I was not always so ethical. During an indefensibly self-indulgent period early in my teaching career (in the mid-1990s), I slept with a number of my students. Most were older than traditional college age; one with whom I had an affair was three years my senior. When we first slept together, I was 29, and she was 32.
“Claire” was a returning student, coming back to college more than a dozen years after dropping out. She was very bright, but like many of those who return to college after years away from academia, anxious about her abilities. Her story was a familiar one: she’d been a clever but underachieving high school student, more interested in social activities than intellectual ones. She used her “erotic capital” with a flair that would have impressed Catherine Hakim, and had a series of older boyfriends.
Claire had gone off to a Cal State campus for one year and partied her way onto academic probation and into eventual dismissal. She had married at 20, had a baby, and stayed home with her daughter for several years. By the time she came to Pasadena City College, she had been divorced for two years, and her daughter was in fifth grade.
In her thirties, much to her surprise, Claire had discovered she loved learning; she loved books, writing, ideas. What had bored her to tears at 17, fascinated her at 32. Her passion was matched by her ability. (It is not always so.) She earned top grades on every test she took and every paper she wrote. And she was funny and lovely; she sat in the front row. Our affair started during the second semester Claire was my student, in the early spring of 1997.
♦◊♦
Claire and I were discreet. Of course, she wasn’t the only person (or, for that matter, the only student) I was dating. Neither of us wanted a serious relationship. None of her classmates knew; even as word spread across campus of my reckless and sordid indiscretions with others, no one discovered what was happening with Claire.
Claire eventually transferred to a nearby liberal arts college renowned for recruiting promising non-traditional students; I wrote her a glowing letter of recommendation. And it was when I handed her a copy of the letter of recommendation that I realized yet another damaging aspect of teacher-student affairs, and one that goes to the heart of what’s so wrong about encouraging the use of “erotic capital.”
Claire looked at the letter and smiled. Her smile faded, though, and I asked her what was wrong. I’d praised her exceptional abilities (particularly her writing skills) to the heavens; I’d meant every word I’d written. Claire said, “I wish I could believe that all of this was true.”
“Of course it’s true!” I exclaimed.
“Is it? Don’t you feel as if you have to say these things after everything that’s happened? How can I know that you mean this?”
I was horrified, and, I confess, indignant. “Christ, Claire, you earned your A in the classroom. I can’t believe you’d doubt that. I wouldn’t say it if it weren’t true.”
Claire remarked, calmly but with an edge in her voice, something to the effect that a professor who was so cavalier about sleeping with his students could hardly be self-righteous when his integrity was questioned. I could tell she wanted to believe that the words I’d written about her intellectual promise were true. I knew damn well that they were true. If I’d never come within 10 feet of her, her dazzling, witty prose, her work ethic, and her insights would have earned her the highest grade in the course. In my mind, our sexual relationship had nothing to do with her academic ability, save that her unusual ability was one of many things that had made her exceptionally attractive to me.
Claire transferred, graduated, remarried, and moved away. She ended up in law school and is now an attorney. I made amends to her in 2001. Our conversation was civil but brisk. She told me that while she had enjoyed my classes, and not been unhappy with our relationship outside of class, she was angry that our affair had made it impossible for her to turn to me as a mentor. Claire hadn’t seen me as a “younger man” (we were less than three years apart, after all), but as her professor. I had something she wanted, and what she had wanted most was intellectual validation. I gave her that, but it came wrapped up in a sexual relationship. As a result, she had had a very difficult and painful time trying to decide whether her A’s were earned, and whether my consistently laudatory feedback was truly deserved.
♦◊♦
A woman who had grown up being told she was “pretty” but “not very bright”, Claire was a late bloomer as a scholar. And by having a sexual relationship with her, I robbed her of the chance to bask in the uncompromised praise she had so indisputably earned. At her four-year school, Claire had found other mentors with whom she didn’t have affairs; she had come to trust that her talents were genuine. She hadn’t been able to get that from me. Whatever fleeting pleasure she had derived from our affair had left a lingering hurt in the form of self-doubt. And the fact that she was three years my senior in no way mitigated my responsibility for causing her that hurt.
It’s been more than 13 years since I slept with a student who was in my classes. And of all the people I hurt with my selfish, narcissistic behavior during my acting-out years, Claire was one of those the memory of whom has haunted me the longest. The amends I made to her may have been sufficient; it was the best I could offer. But she is one of those who has spurred me not only to change my life, and change it radically, but to be such a public advocate for banning “consensual” sexual relationships between profs and students. And she is one of those of whom I first thought when I read about Catherine Hakim’s thesis.
When the person with whom you are getting naked is also the person evaluating your work and your intellectual ability, the potential for crippling self-doubt will always be there. There is no capital in that.
—Photo americanistadechiapas/Flickr
About Hugo Schwyzer
In light of Hugo’s past acceptance of the theory of privilege, this argument seems highly dubious.
On the one hand, it’s argued that erotic capital is not actually a form of capital because spending it will create self-doubt: Was my work worth an A, or is this just a result of sleeping with him?
Yet, on the other hand, the very idea of privilege suggests that people with traditionally defined capital (better known as money), must constantly question whether or not their privileges are earned: Would I have gotten into Harvard if I was born poor?
So which is it? Should someone born into traditional capital never question where they would be without their family’s wealth? Or is it just possible that erotic capital is much closer to true capital after all?
Hugo. What on earth are you talking about? This isn’t the erotic capital that the original author was talking about. From the article here: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/03/have-you-got-erotic-capital/ I quote the following:
“World Health Organisation research shows that humans see sexual activity as essential to quality of life—but men still rank sex as more important than women. Indeed, rocketing global demand for sexual activity of all kinds (including commercial sex, autoeroticism and erotic entertainments) has been far more pronounced among men than women. Sex tourism is essentially a male hobby, while erotic magazines for women often fail.”
And
“Men are two to ten times more likely to have affairs, buy pornography, seek lap-dancing clubs and erotic entertainments. And call girls’ earnings can exceed wages in nearly all the professions, despite working shorter hours.”
And for emphasis sake I repeat: “And call girls’ earnings can exceed wages in nearly all the professions, despite working shorter hours.”
THAT IS EROTIC CAPITAL and its use by women.
What you’re talking about is a complexities and vagueries of intimate sexual relationships. Erotic capital helps (I bet you didn’t sleep with nearly as many ugly female students after all did you?), but it’s still principally an intimate sexual relationship.
Sure, sure, erotic capital can result in this: (again from the article)
“The economic benefits of being physically and socially attractive can be substantial, especially in marketing, public relations, television, advocacy in the courts, as well as for actors, singers and dancers. But it’s broader than this: people working in the better-paid parts of the private sector are more attractive than those in the public and non-profit sectors. Tall and attractive people are more likely to be employed in professional jobs, like law or banking” (Funny there’s the legal profession again, but I digress).
If a woman’s going to exploit her “erotic capital” what a smart woman would do (and I’ve met them) is learn how to be a grade A stripper (and no, it’s not all looks), make a million dollars in 2 or 3 years, invest the money earned in decent investments (real estate, Canadian banks (not the American kind), businesses, etc.) and retire at 30.
I’ve met four such strippers in my short time (about 2 years) going to the ‘rippers 3 times a week. That is how one exploits female erotic capital. It’s the same for escorts and other sex workers.
What I’ve described is what the smarter women in the sex trade do with their erotic capital. Others waste it. A certain amount of exploitation of erotic capital is available to all women (in fact all people period) as the more attractive folks make more money, but true exploitation of erotic capital is done in the sex trade, a trade in which the profits and revenues go to women, not men. Sleeping your way through university is pretty damned small beer in terms of “erotic capital” and has too many entanglements as your student lover learned. Smart sex workers go for what’s important. CASH. They then do what all smart business people do, save and invest. They know that their capital won’t last forever.
All profits in the sex trade go to women? Hello? Pimps don’t make money? Strip club owners? Porn companies? Organized crime? Human traffickers?
Yes there are some women who make a ton of money but I don’t think that the sex trade is, overall, run by women for the financial benefit of women.
Undoubtedly. Just like any other industry.
No, I think the sex trade is something where young women and young men are exploited more than in other businesses. There’s a lot of slavery involved around the world. The job hazards are huge – STDs, torture, and death.
Hugo, I have to call you out here.
This young woman did not trade her sexual capital for anything. You abused your position and essentially victimized her. Her sexual capital has nothing to do with it. Your unethical an immoral behavior hurt her. Period.
You didn’t rob “Claire” of her of “the chance to bask in the uncompromised praise she had so indisputably earned.” You simply robbed her of the belief that what came out of your mouth could be the unadulterated truth. I’m absolutely sure there were other professors who wrote recommendations (or maybe she was sleeping with ALL of her professors?). The fact that she was already transferring showed that she recognized her potential despite your attempts to do otherwise.
I’m really worried about this need to tie every topic back to your glory days of hound-doggin’ every student that walked through your classes. I’ve seen the same thing in AA meetings where guys argue over who had the worst time before recovery. It shows a longing for the “good old days” and indicates that a real change of heart may not have taken place.
I don’t know you well enough to say yes or no on that, Hugo. But it’s something to consider.
I think this gets at the heart of why professors shouldn’t sleep with their students. It’s hard not to be mad at you for what you did, but at least you had the strength to change.
I would add that you can’t really ever be sure that your opinion of her was not influenced by your attraction to her and the sex.
The other damage is to the woman in your class who was just as smart and creative, but less attractive.
Along with the issue of trusting one’s teacher, there is the question of power and consent.
There is an inherent power dynamic in the relationship between a teacher and a student. That means there will always be some question whether or not the student could fully consent to a romantic relationship. Was she fully free to say no or to end the relationship without negative academic consequences? I don’t think Hugo set out to exploit his position. In fact, I’m guessing he tried very hard to minimize this power difference. I also get the sense that the student was a very willing participant and the relationship was equally her idea as his. However, the power difference doesn’t go away just because of that.
That being said, this student is not simply a victim of Hugo’s attentions. If she’s a victim, she’s not just a victim and nothing else. Even though she was in the less powerful position, this does not mean that she had no agency and no responsibility for her actions. If she looks back on that relationship and thinks of herself as only a victim, then she has some growing up to do as well. This takes no responsibility away from Hugo. He did wrong whether she agreed to go along or not. Both of them ruined the mentoring relationship, even if Hugo bears most of the blame.
1. There is female sex tourism. Greece, the Carribean, Africa.
2. Every situation is unique. But, if she couldn’t accept Hugo’s letter, there was something nutty going on with her. Maybe Hugo too.
3. As usual, the commenters are reifying the idea of power. Maybe this’ll blow over someday.
1. There is a lot less female sex tourism than male sex tourism. However, any sex tourism is bad and it’s a shame that women are going down this road now. That’s not liberation, just rich women joining in oppressing people.
2. I think it makes a lot of sense that she couldn’t believe his letter of praise once he’d slept with her. Human beings are influenced by their feelings. Sometimes people do things as a quid pro quo. The woman involved may have believed that if she didn’t have sex with him, he would have graded her badly. That’s the danger of sex between professors and students or bosses and employees. The communication is not free and equal. You can never be sure that the student or employee feels free to say no.
3. I’m troubled by your comment on reifying power, given that I think you are an older male professor with power. I’m not sure what you meant, but there is a huge difference between someone talking about how people without power aren’t just victims and people with power suggesting that they aren’t really powerful. The latter can be a way to rationalize and excuse exploitation.
I am an older male professor who doesn’t have relationships with students. I don’t have much power in my estimation. I do think current efforts to control the micro-cluture of human interaction are a bad idea. If you want to do something about exploitation, look at Wall Street or the Republicans.
Hugo, it sounds like you abused your position plain and simple. Your experience with Claire is not an argument for or against the use of erotic capital.
You said:
“When the person with whom you are getting naked is also the person evaluating your work and your intellectual ability, the potential for crippling self-doubt will always be there. There is no capital in that.”
I have to correct you here. First, Claire was not “crippled” by self-doubt. She may have doubted the authenticity of your praise, but she didn’t sound crippled by the situation & I am comfortable guessing that she moved on just fine. Second, you don’t have to actually sleep with a man to get what you want out of him – many times you only have to flirt or create sexual tension. Men will trip over their own tongues trying to “assist” an attractive woman. Male supervisors will award opportunities, bonuses, and promotions based on big bouncy breasts attached to a flirtatious owner.
Erotic capital is a powerful thing. It has destroyed families, ended political careers….need I go on?
No. We ALL know this.
Why the push to devalue erotic capital? Is it scary to think that the female form could have that much power over you?
Saying erotic capital has no value is absurd.
Erotic capital is worth a whole lot of money. The post by The Wet One is dead on.
Flirting and the use of sexual tension works because men can’t seem to resist it. Sorry if that scares you – but it’s true. Men have always paid (in terms of things like currency, property, resources, and grades, etc) for female company and for access to female bodies & they always will.
Any questions?
I have to agree with you on thus, sadly. Did Hugh try so hard to be a mentor to students who weren’t attractive, who he didn’t want to sleep with? Did he shower extra attention on brilliant students who were fat or plain? I doubt it. Every class I’ve been in, every job I’ve had, I’ve seen men falling all over themselves to “help” the attractive young women. The women may be too naive to see what’s happening, or they may use it to their advantage by being flirty. Usually no sex is involved. Just flirting in return for extra attention, opportunities and assistance. But in the long run, the women don’t benefit. In a few years they won’t be the youngest or most attractive woman in the office anymore, and they will have to sink or swim on their own merits. I’ve known women who had a very hard time adjusting to the fact that men don’t give a crap about them anymore. Those men who used to be so nice, and helpful…. Sexual favoritism by a boss or manager or professor can also devastate office moral because EVERYONE can see it happening.
Flirting and the use of sexual tension works because men can’t seem to resist it.
We’ve been taught to believe we can’t resist it and to value sexual attention from women to the point of risking nearly anything and everything for it.
Saying erotic capital has no value is absurd.
I agree. It certainly has value. I also agree that it should not have that value but devaluing it is going to take a hell of a lot more than just saying it really isn’t worth that much.
Second, you don’t have to actually sleep with a man to get what you want out of him – many times you only have to flirt or create sexual tension.
True and often times when that happens people are quick to tell that guy he is wrong for being angry (or at least wrong for insulting her for teasing him until she got what she wanted) or writing him off as, “if he was stupid enough to do that then he deserves it.” (odd considering that when women engage in this behavior and something bad happens to them the sympathy comes out in abundance).
Sometimes it is a no win situation because friendliness and being warm and interested in someone, and seeking positive attention from them, is also flirtatious even if it’s not intended to be overtly sexual. Some women act flirtatiously (or in a way that comes across as flirtatious) somewhat unconsciously. I know women who are very “flirty” with everyone — men, other women, customers, coworkers, even strangers. Generally these are women with a social, outgoing personalities who want others to like them and they’ve learned that flirty behavior works, They tend to be very likable so their behavior is reinforced. Others can read too much into it at times. On the other hand, If a woman is standoffish, she gets labelled a cold bitch. Of course, there are women who are flirty in a cynical and manipulative way, but I think most women have been socialized to interact in ways that create positive vibes, for lack of a better word.
May I first respond to this statement by Miss Ultra (now there’s ya some literary erotic capital right THERE)
“Flirting and the use of sexual tension works because men can’t seem to resist it.”
This makes me speculate that you missed your calling as either a successful dominatrix or next in line when Selina Kyle retires from being Catwoman. (Said In Jest…The eyes of the thought police are upon us….all-l-l-l the live-long d-a-a-a-a-ay)
First, there are quite a few men that do their damnedest NOT to be SO entranced by mere T & A that vital decision making processes are affected. Not because of the specter of sexual harassment laws & policies, or because the feminist activists told them to. One reason many men don’t is because we have to look in the mirror at least once a day to shave, and would prefer to attend to this without CRINGING at our reflection. I will be the first to admit that many men reach this “moment of clarity” because they’ve watched in mild revulsion as other men didn’t resist it as well as they should in the context of the situation in which the incident occurred. Other men (I include myself in this number) go out of there way to treat ALL women in their environment as drop-dead gorgeous “10’s” because it spreads smiles (always in miserably short supply) and brightens the day of all women in the male in question’s environment.
There are also many men with a truly realistic sense of whether their personal level of attractiveness warrants the attention being showered on them by an attractive woman. Call it the “out-of –my-league” version of Peter Parker’s “spider sense”.
Here’s another one, although at first glance it’s easy to mistake it for bitterness, but thankfully, it merely sharpened my cynicism reflex. In high school I had fairly well developed art skills. This became a bargaining tool amongst my peers, & a trap-door escape in some classes, enabling me to side-step the drudgeries of classmates ankle-chained to reviewing chapter 12 through 14 in a boring-as-hell world history book. It also led to opportunities to be approached by pretty classmates looking for that extra “oomph” by way of my drawing skills to their theme papers & book reports. Since I enjoyed chances to put my budding skills up against actual “field conditions” I didn’t mind. So my exposure to what is referred to in this thread as “erotic capital” as a rather deceptive incentive that never allows even the slightest peek at the personal erotic capital portfolio (or even the prospectus) of any girl, began at an earlier age for me than most young men did. After the lil’cuties got want the needed for their schoolwork, off they flounced to seek some knuckle-dragger on the football or basketball team, a “college” guy, or some guy their peer group gave approval. Hey, they were girl-kids, another good reason for no bitter aftertaste.
However, those of us that have experienced that kind of deception (which is what it really is) tend not to forget it. “Erotic capital” is merely a streamlined phrase for an old saying strippers & strip-club owners have had for years:
“You’ll get screwed here, but you’ll never get LAID.”
I think the most pertinent sentence in this essay is the one recounting Claire’s characterization as “pretty but not that bright” by presumably influential figures in her development (peers, parents, and most assuredly teachers). The young author fucked things up when he seemingly disregarded the possibility of a problematic self-concept his student might have developed regarding that weirdly dualistic formulation and its potential implications.
I find the concept of erotic capital uninteresting but the troublesome binary opposition it (physical beauty in women vs athletic achievement in men) has with intellectual ability to be worthy of dissection from an antisexist and anticartesian perspective.
Dang! I need to go back to school. I have no idea what your last paragraph means. Care to dumb that down a bit for me?
I think he’s upset by the implication that intelligence is the opposite of beauty or male hunkiness. He is suggesting that it is sexist and that it is wrong because it is cartesian. I think he may also be suggesting that it splits mind and body and we shouldn’t.
Okay, so Mr. Schwyzer’s article isn’t quite as much about “erotic capital” as advertised, “E.C.” simply has a very small supporting role in this story. If Erotic Capital were an actor in a movie based on this story, the best the actor in question could hope for is a bit part.
However, let’s work with the story we have here. Afterwards, I’ll conclude with just a couple of thoughts on erotic capital and what this concept leads me to think, separate from the story presented here.
First off, “Claire” was not a naïve 20-year old free-spirited nymphet who had yet to learn of the price of a sexual romp via the launch-pad of a professional relationship. The detailed description of Claire’s age and personal history provided by Mr. Schwyzer (we have firmly established it’s a fictitious name, so no more quotation marks) takes care of that; right down to informing us of behavior so rowdy at her first turn at college she had to leave via academic ejection seat. When she enters Mr. Schwyzer’s “sights” (this, based on his own description of his general behavior patterns at the time) she had married, birthed a child, & gotten a divorce. These are mentioned here not to grade this woman. I mention them because this means her life experiences at her age should have resulted in some sense of awareness concerning the trap-doors of sleeping with a professor she was taking a class under.
This means we can dispense with the idea that Prof. Schwyzer (despite his confessed season of self-indulgence) was doing a sexually predatory Snidely Whiplash imitation complete with snickering evil laugh and hand-wringing as the poker chips of “sexual capital” were slid his way across the academic poker table by Claire.
She was THIRTY-TWO. It bears repeating.
Now, affairs (from what I’ve gathered, having never had one) do take maintenance. During the course of the affair (I question even calling it an “affair” since that’s usually code that at least ONE of the people involved was not single) this maintenance isn’t noticed so much due to the mutual fascination both parties have for each other as well as the sheer, racy joy the “scandalous” relationship itself provides. Why I invoke this concept is to point out there had to be some true capital (likeability, admiration for her enthusiasm in returning to college, watching her efforts result in (ironically) real self-capital, etc…I could go on) exchanged after the initial trigger of mutual attractiveness that “erotic capital” merely ignited. This means that at some point, even if it’s during a pillow talk session, enough information about how this here “lecherous” Prof. Schwyzer felt of Claire’s class progress thanks to her skills & work ethic should’ve come up, at least once in a while. Mr. Schwyzer does not clue us in on the actually time that the fling in question lasted, nor does he explain the conditions of how erotic capital was actually exchanged. Backseat paratrooping? Rendezvous at the No-Tell Motel? Sneak in through the back door of the good Professor’s residence? These conditions can affect opportunities for verbal communication. I mention these things not as if I’ve caught Mr. Schwyzer in a flaw, but to help drive home the point that there’s shared responsibility between Mr. Schwyzer’s philandering ways (by his own admission) and Claire’s willingness to be “plundered”. Time spent with her Professor even under these conditions (classroom & bedroom) should’ve allowed Claire to realize that she earned her grades by honest means, not by using the Tunnel Of Love entrance to the classroom.
So, while Mr. Schwyzer is entitled to some serious regret over a lesson finally learned, this does not mean he should need pack his bags for an extended guilt trip, or accept the role as the sole head-hung-in-shame amends maker. Claire denied herself the opportunity of objective academic validation unsullied by a sex fling equally as much as Mr. Schwyzer did. 32 years old is to damn old to behave like a jilted college co-ed that blames her sexual adventure with a professor and all it brought her on the professor alone. It is interesting to note we’re told that Claire, despite her denial of her slice of responsibility in this deal, and her apparent repeat of some vestige of the same behavior that truncated her education in the first place, learned enough that she went through four subsequent years of college without making another foolish withdrawal from her “erotic capital” account with yet another faculty member. Despite this, Claire thinks Mr. Schwyzer is solely responsible, apparently.
Now that we’ve finished with that, let us turn to the reasons that applying the dubious concept of “erotic capital” to the straight-up business world will die a quick death.
Regardless of whatever else we all think of the dark alleys that lead to office affairs or the promise of sexual congress, or questionable corporate behavior in general for that matter, the day inevitably comes where results are what count; not how hot the woman (or man) is that’s delivering the results. Conversely, this also means that a woman’s shape presented in a pencil skirt, stiletto heels and tight blouse that’s aided and abetted by the latest in “pull ‘em up, push ’em together, have some cleavage” bra technology is not going to save your ass in the office or boardroom for very long, if at all. The best you can assume under these circumstances is that you’ll slam into the “Peter Principal” wall of your personal level of incompetence at warp speed.
Next, since the assets that comprise “effective” erotic capital are well, rather lopsidedly distributed in the general populace, you can bet the white noise generated by what is little more than re-packaging the concept of the “office tart” into the rarified term “erotic capital” will not be welcomed or appreciated by other female staff members, regardless of position. Workplace lawsuits claiming preferential treatment perpetrated by the blind luck of genetics that essentially means some erotic capital portfolios look better than others, or artificially inflated erotic capital accounts by plastic surgery, will mean that Claire choosing a legal career will mean more success to her than Victoria’s Secret could ever claim to provide.
Hahahahaha! The first part of this is the single funniest thing I’ve read here. But I do disagree with the second.
Before businesses are “productive” as businesses, they are first, cultures, and second, bureaucracies. This means that they are far from being optimally efficient. So (and I was in healthcare management for about ten years,) I’ve seen many women rewarded for personal attributes as opposed to ability. Some, like my last hospital administrator, seemed to have zero management ability, but did have an ability to seem personally pleasing to higher ups. Not all of this is erotic capital per se. Sometimes it probably hinges also on women being good at ingratiating themselves in ways not specifically erotic. This last administrator was anxious to get rid of those of us who were more analytical who worked under her. She ended up firing all the male managers in the hospital, except the maintenence supervisor. I was fired just as I started my PhD program.
When I pointed out to the corporation that it was all older men who were fired, I received several months additional severance pay to keep quiet about it.
The hospital closed about a year later due to the administrator’s mismanagement.
Thank you Mr. Vandenburgh…!!! You recognized something about the Good Men Project that I feel is tragically missing; namely, humor at any level, cerebral or slapstick.
(Good men LAUGH, dammit…!!!! haHaHaHa…!!!!)
My second comment is also couched in a thank-you that should be from us all. As we all skip through this site and leave our sometimes dry & pithy comments & philosophies, they can easily be mistaken for some form of stone-chiseled absolute. One of the prime directives of living should be something that used to be standard parlance at the end of every new car commercial:
“….your mileage may vary…”
Your comments remind us all of this.
As for me, I will sleep the sleep of the just tonight, knowing I gave a guy either has or WILL soon have a PhD…a good laugh…!!!!!
P.S. My responsibility to my gender and its favorite discretely pursued pastime of enjoying ladies displaying their “erotic capital” at swanky parties & night clubs as well other appropriate venues, behooves me to state the following:
In no way am I discouraging pencil skirts, stilettos, or tight blouses aided & abetted by cutting edge bra technology.
Your mileage may again vary.
SEE? The last line of your comment PROVES she slammed into the “incompetence” wall SO HARD that she took EVERYBODY’S job with her…!!!!!
(Disclaimer: Amused commentary not to be taken as contradictory against my first followup post on Mr. Vandenburgh’s comments)
One more thing…(Ah jus’ can’t “hep” it….)
Was it jus’ me, or did anyone else notice that in the TWO sites Mr. Schwyzer’s Naughty-Professor-Nookie essay has shown up, these two site have chosen “young co-ed lying on the grass” pictures to run with it despite the fact that the “co-ed” in question here is three YEARS his SENIOR..?!?!?!?!?