The Art of Seduction
I could never be a pick-up artist, I've always been incapable of coming up with a line that didn't sound so obvious that it was ridiculous. When I was working as a director and casting director there were plenty of times when I was inclined to show interest in someone that was other than professional, but I was loathe to come off as a cliche. The one time I tried it was in Italy, casting my film The Martlet's Tale. A stunning young actress appeared in my office one day with her woman agent. After a few moments of talk I could see she was as smart and charming as she was beautiful. "Do you have a boyfriend?" I blurted out. "No," her agent answered. "No," the actress echoed. She was lying. I wound up marrying her.
posted by John M Crowther @ 7:50 AM
22 Comments:
Has anyone noticed the remarkable physical resemblance in John’s drawing between the woman on the far right and the girl second from the left? The girl on the left is the one you fall in love with; the woman on the right is the one you end up marrying.
That is a very sad commentary. Why would you think that? Why would anyone marry someone like the woman on the right, from whose body language it is evident that she is without any kind of charisma, and whose demeanor screams "I know I'm not attractive"? If those two did marry, it would be a disaster. Two people have got to be equal in order to be happy together. I don't mean equal in ALL respects; one may be a lot more attractive or intelligent or creative. But the other one sure as hell better have other things to balance the equation.
Marrying the woman on the right would be like drinking a cheap wine; it's quick to numb the senses. Marrying the girl on the right would be like drinking champagne. Now what kind of person would choose the former, when the later is available?
The one exception would be two co-dependents hooking up. The one who is a dud gets to feel all important for keeping the other one from growing up, and thus forever emotionally dependent.
Speaking of commentaries, John, I'm afraid you've already posted this one!
Il professore, you are right, marvelous that you saw it so fast, I had to go back and look again at the cartoon, it is the before and after drawings (grin). Personally think that he deserves whatever he gets, 800 number indeed! {laughing} I have a friend who is so beautiful with a perfect figure that she stops traffic on the street but not a brain cell in her lovely head. Her relationships with men are usually short as her conversations are not what I would call stimulating but she has a good heart! Glad John C. hit the jackpot with his wife.
When referring to two unpleasant people who are married to each other, my mother used to say, "why ruin two houses."
I love the unpredictable direction the comments take. Already posted what commentary, Kate? When? I only wrote it this morning. And if perchance I've touched on the subject in the past, well, after four hundred and twenty-one daily posts I can be forgiven for occasionally trotting some aspect of my life out more than once, no?
Well, I've READ that many commentaries, and yet I remember.
So what's the difference?
Should we bet who can find that blog entry the quicker/
It's your blog John... you can do what you darned well like... (isn't it g-r-e-a-t?) LOL
Such a lot to read into one little cartoon guys! But when you think about it there could be any number of different scenarios here... all shaped and coloured by our personal response to a differing life experience. Interesting to read these takes tho... :-)
I owe my marriage to the discrimination against women in the mid 50's. Eileen got the highest grade on an exam for budget examiner in Kansas so they withdrew the exam and specified that the position was only available to males. She then apploed for a graduate assisrabrship in public adminstration at the University of New mexico and after beibg awarded it the offer was rescinded again because she was a woman. I was the third choice and never regretted it, roger
I'm very curious to know, since this is a blog site that seems to attract highly dynamic, intelligent and talented people; is there anyone with a significant other who is far less 1) intelligent 2) talented 3) attractive 4) interesting?
Perhaps my bias' are coloring my perceptions, and it really DOES work for two people who are fundamentally unequal in status to remain together happily.
Hmmm, I dunno, is it remotely possible there's anyone at all out there -- blog reader or no -- who would answer, "my wife is ugly as sin, but she reads Proust in the original French, or, "my husband is an adonis, but dumb as a box of rocks?" By many accounts, Einstein's first wife was dowdy and plain, but smarter than he.
Einstein wasn't exactly what I'd call a stud muffin.
I doubt she was more intelligent than he, however.
And that doesn't address the question posed. If she were more intelligent than he, but not attractive, I'd say that evened the playing field.
But I'll concede one point: a man, (out of pride, in MO) will never admit he's married to someone unattractive, and/or stupid or boring. An unattractive, boring spouse makes one's status go waaaaaayyyyyy down.
Even the ones married to the most boring, unattractive and stupid women will continue to profess their undying love. Even though no one believes them.
this line reminds me of the song "If you want to be happy for the rest of your life":
{Refrain}
"If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife
So from my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you
A pretty woman makes her husband look small
And very often causes his downfall
As soon as he marries her, then she starts
Doin' the things that will break his heart
But if you make an ugly woman your wife
You'll be happy for the rest of your life
An ugly woman cooks your meals on time
An she'll always give you peace of mind
Don't let your friends say you have no taste
Go ahead and marry anyway
Though her face is ugly and her eyes don't match
Take it from me, she's a better catch"
But my eyes don't match (one is green, the other blue), and I love to cook..... hmmmm... I wonder what that means.
I wonder if it is insecure men that marry over weight, unattractive women. This came to me when I heard a young man say he married his wife because of her looks and no other men would want her. About 10 years after their marriage she went on a diet, lost weight and looked great. They divorced and he married another gal that looked just like his first one while heavy. Kat
"I have a friend who is so beautiful with a perfect figure that she stops traffic on the street but not a brain cell in her lovely head. Her relationships with men are usually short as her conversations are not what I would call stimulating but she has a good heart!"
Is she seeing anyone presently?
Kate asks:
>>That is a very sad commentary. Why would you think that? Why would anyone marry someone like the woman on the right,<<
Alas, you think you're getting Left, but what you end up living with is Right.
Right for whom?
Who in heavens name would want to marry someone who is like that? What could she possibly offer?
Intriguing or intelligent conversation? Intelligent and intriguing people will be confident... not stand around like a whipped dog. Good, er.... marital relations? No way. A woman has to feel confident with herself and in her body to make THAT work.
A marriage is supposed to be an equal partnership.
John would need to draw an insecure, frightened and pathetic character to be her equal.
Maybe I'm being harsh, but John drew that woman that particular way for a reason, so I think the reader is supposed to think that about her.
The subject of the cartoon isn't marriage. Indeed, any woman who'd marry that dime-a-dozen Romeo would be out of her skull and probably deserves him. As for the woman on the right, I think she's just curious, peering around her friend to see who this bum is.
You drew the cartoon so would know best.
So maybe you didn't mean to give her the appearance of a big mouse, with body language that suggests she is without any kind of positive attributes, but you did, and the first person who commented on it brought it to the forefront.
As far as the woman on the Left becoming the woman on the right, I think it would take some extreme circumstances for that to come about, like marriage to an emotionally abusive man, like the one in the cartoon. But it takes a certain kind of woman: unattractive, not too bright, and brought up with emotionally abusive parents, to marry someone like that to begin with.
That is why insecure men marry women like that. As Kat pointed out, insecure men will always marry a fat, ugly woman.
That way they will have someone who is guaranteed never to leave them, because they are women no one else wants.
>>As far as the woman on the Left becoming the woman on the right, I think it would take some extreme circumstances for that to come about, like marriage to an emotionally abusive man, like the one in the cartoon.<<
As far as I can see there is nothing in John’s illustration to suggest that the man of the right is abusive. That he is offering her a business card with an 800 number certainly displays a lack of sophistication, agreed. Slimy, swarmy and stupid, yes, abusive no. It’s true that his oval tie is too wide, limited in design, and that his feet are crossed, but some of my best and least violent friends wears inappropriate cravats and cross their feet at art openings. Let’s not judge a book by its cover or foot crossing.
If it looks like a slime ball, acts like a slime ball and sounds like a slime ball, it's a slime ball.
I've been on the receiving end of that kind of attention often enough to be a fair judge.
Would you really have us believe that you think a man like that stops behaving like that just because he gives some idiot girl a ring?
There is no ambiguity in the way that man is drawn. Any woman who isn't an idiot can see that in 2 seconds.
They say that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Well then so is Sliminess. Cause the woman on the right appears to be disapproving doesn’t necessarily mean that the artist disapproves. For all we know that fellow on the Left might be a self-portrait. Didn’t Rembrant and Botticelli put themselves into their paintings?
I'm not relying on the woman's reaction. I have my own reaction independent of anyone else's.
The guy could be alone in this picture and I would still see he's a creep. Why would John portray himself as a creep?
And now I'm getting ready for a New Year's party where I'll no doubt have several men just like that to contend with.
Lucky you Kate! At least you'll know what to do! LOL
HAPPY NEW YEAR everyone!
Post a Comment
<< Home