photo via flickr

Sexuality educator Charlie Glickman, who runs the education programs at Good Vibrations (in other words, he’s got serious Sensitive Guy chops), recently published an article on his blog called “Confessions of a Former Sensitive New Age Guy.” He consciously chose to become a S.N.A.G. back in college, and his motives were initially quite pure: he was a waif of a guy who couldn’t figure out how to be a manly dude and so he went for the opposite extreme. Also, after a female friend of his made him follow ten feet behind her while she walked down a sidewalk (to witness the catcalling, etc.), he “decided that if men were causing so much pain to so many people, the ethical response would be for me to become the opposite of that.” But a funny thing happened once he became a fully-fledged S.N.A.G.: he started getting laid more. A lot more. And once that happened, he began to lose sight of why he was being such a decent dude in the first place.

Glickman’s essay is, in part, a response to this Open Letter to New Age Dudes, which rails against man who act all sensitive and feminist — who even try to out-feminist their female counterparts — in order to get laid. Glickman defends himself — and, to some extend, his fellow S.N.A.G.’s — by explaining that even the most genuine Sensitive Guy in the world can lose his way when he realizes how his approach slays the ladies. And Glickman notes that it’s easy to fall into this trap because it’s so easy to be a S.N.A.G.: “All it takes is acting with a little kindness and willingness to listen to a woman to stand out from the rest of the pack. Actually, all a man needs to do is not be emotionally, physically, sexually, or verbally abusive and he’s already ahead of the curve. How sad is that?”

Because we’re in a glass-half-full mood today, we’re actually kind of cheered by this online debate (and yes, we realize that the debate has been going on, in one form or another, for decades). Sure, it sucks that guys pretend to be into equality just to get into a woman’s pants. But we love the fact that this works. Let us explain…

Read the rest of this post on SUNfiltered

photo via flickr

We’re suckers for a good Twitter hashtag — they can make everyone feel like a stand-up comedian for a few minutes (not to mention giving us all a break from reading what our colleagues ate for breakfast). We particularly loved the #lessambitiousbooks hashtag that was trending this week, and of course we jumped on the bandwagon, finding ourselves hilarious @EMandLO. We were planning on publishing a round-up of our favorite sex- and love-related entries found on Twitter, but as it turned out, we had more fun coming up with our own. So here are our top 10 less ambitious sex (or sexy) books:

1. The Joy of Dry Humping
2. Lady Chatterly’s Booty Call
3. Are You There God? I Can Call Back Later If You’re Busy (and the racier book For Quite a Long Time)
4. Slightly Risky Liaisons
5. The Mauve Letter
6. Our Digestive Tracts, Ourselves
7. The Kinsey Tweets
8. One or Two Things You Were Wondering About Sex (But Never Got Around to Asking)
9. Eat Pray Date Night
10. Slight Hangup About Flying

• This post is a part of Sundance Channel’s SUNfiltered Blog
• Get the Naked Love RSS feed

Sometimes you have to date someone for months before the crazy comes out. And then other times, you receive a 1,600 word email after a disastrous first date that accuses you of leading the person on because you played with your hair, you made a lot of eye contact, and you said “Nice to meet you” at the end of the evening. We’re going to have to rethink our first-date advice now, because we’ve always told people that if you’re not planning on calling someone, then don’t say “I’ll call you” and never call — instead just say, at the end of the date, “It was nice to meet you,” and leave it at that. We figured that was the international standard for, “Have a nice life.” Apparently one investment banker didn’t get the memo.

Of course, this 1,600 word email could be a fake. (Backstory: “Lauren” went to the Philharmonic alone, met “Mike” there, and they went on one date, after which she didn’t return his calls, so he Googled her email address and sent her the below letter.) But we’ve received thousand of emails over the years from people who are sad/mad/heartbroken/crazy about love — and this one reads like real-life crazy to us. Here’s the letter in full — we’ll let you decide:

Hi Lauren,
I’m disappointed in you. I’m disappointed that I haven’t gotten a response to my voicemail and text messages.
FYI, I suggest that you keep in mind that emails sound more impersonal, harsher, and are easier to misinterpret than in-person or phone communication. After all, people can’t see someone’s body language or tone of voice in an email. I’m not trying to be harsh, patronizing, or insulting in this email. I’m honest and direct by nature, and I’m going to be that way in this email. By the way, I did a google search, so that’s how I came across your email.
I assume that you no longer want to go out with me. (If you do want to go out with me, then you should let me know.) I suggest that you make a sincere apology to me for giving me mixed signals. I feel led on by you.
Things that happened during our date include, but are not limited to, the following:
-You played with your hair a lot. A woman playing with her hair is a common sign of flirtation. You can even do a google search on it. When a woman plays with her hair, she is preening. I’ve never had a date where a woman played with her hair as much as you did. In addition, it didn’t look like you were playing with your hair out of nervousness.
-We had lots of eye contact during our date. On a per-minute basis, I’ve never had as much eye contact during a date as I did with you.
-You said, “It was nice to meet you.” at the end of our date. A woman could say this statement as a way to show that she isn’t interested in seeing a man again or she could mean what she said–that it was nice to meet you. The statement, by itself, is inconclusive.
-We had a nice conversation over dinner. I don’t think I’m being delusional in saying this statement.
In my opinion, leading someone on (i.e., giving mixed signals) is impolite and immature. It’s bad to do that.
Normally, I would not be asking for information if a woman and I don’t go out again after a first date. However, in our case, I’m curious because I think our date went well and that there is a lot of potential for a serious relationship. Of course, it’s difficult to predict what would happen, but I think there is a lot of potential for a serious relationship developing between us one day (or least there was before your non-response to my voicemail and text messages).
I think we should go out on a second date. In my opinion, our first date was good enough to lead to a second date.
Why am I writing you? Well, hopefully, we will go out again. Even if we don’t, I gain utility from expressing my thoughts to you. In addition, even if you don’t want to go out again, I would like to get feedback as to why you wouldn’t want to go again. Normally, I wouldn’t ask a woman for this type of feedback after a first date, but this is an exception given I think we have a lot of potential.
If you don’t want to go again, then apparently you didn’t think our first date was good enough to lead to a second date. Dating or a relationship is not a Hollywood movie. It’s good to keep that in mind. In general, I thought the date went well and was expecting that we would go out on a second date.
If you’re not interested in going out again, then I would have preferred if you hadn’t given those mixed signals. I feel led on. We have a number of things in common. I’ll name a few things: First, we’ve both very intelligent. Second, we both like classical music so much that we go to classical music performances by ourselves. In fact, the number one interest that I would want to have in common with a woman with whom I’m in a relationship is a liking of classical music. I wouldn’t be seriously involved with a woman if she didn’t like classical music. You said that you’re planning to go the NY Philharmonic more often in the future. As I said, I go to the NY Philharmonic often. You’re very busy. It would be very convenient for you to date me because we have the same interests. We already go to classical music performances by ourselves. If we go to classical music performances together, it wouldn’t take any significant additional time on your part. According to the internet, you’re 33 or 32, so, at least from my point of view, we’re a good match in terms of age. I could name more things that we have in common, but I’ll stop here. I don’t understand why you apparently don’t want to go out with me again. We have numerous things in common. I assume that you find me physically attractive. If you didn’t find me physically attractive, then it would have been irrational for you to go out with me in the first place. After all, our first date was not a blind date. You already knew what I looked like before our date. Perhaps, you’re unimpressed that I manage my family’s investments and my own investments. Perhaps, you don’t think I have a “real” job. Well, I’ve done very well as an investment manager. I’ve made my parents several millions of dollars. That’s real money. That’s not monopoly money. In my opinion, if I make real money, it’s a real job. Donald Trump’s children work for his company. Do they have “real” jobs? I think so. George Soros’s sons help manage their family investments. Do they have “real” jobs? I think so. In addition, I’m both a right-brain and left-brain man, given that I’m both an investment manager and a philosopher/writer. That’s a unique characteristic; most people aren’t like that. I’ve never been as disappointed and sad about having difficulty about getting a second date as I am with you. I’ve gone out with a lot of women in my life. (FYI, I’m not a serial dater. Sometimes, I’ve only gone out with a woman for one date.) People don’t grow on trees. I hope you appreciate the potential we have.

Read the rest of this post on SUNfiltered