Slightly more than three quarters of the homosexual offenders vs. adults had had contact with more than 20 males since puberty. This proportion is 22 times that of the control group, also nearly six times that of the prison group, double that of the homosexual offenders vs. children, and half again as much as that of the homosexual offenders vs. minors. While other groups may be said to contain a core of males extensively experienced in homosexuality, the homosexual offender vs. adults group consists almost entirely of such males. This is to be expected: few men in the prison and control groups were interested in homosexual activity, and while many of the homosexual offenders vs. children and minors were interested, their age preferences limited their promiscuity. The male desirous of sexual activity with adult males, and who knows which situations are advantageous and which are unprofitable or dangerous, is in a unique position to fulfill his desires. Omitting prostitution, the most promiscuous heterosexual male would find it difficult to find seven female coital partners in one week even in a large city, whereas a knowledgeable homosexual could find as many males in two days or, with a bit of luck, in one.

The following discussion and comparison under this heading of “extensive homosexuality” will be confined to only those individuals who had over 20 male sexual partners.

Their promiscuity is reflected also in the high percentage of their partners who were “pickups”: nearly half said that over 80 per cent were “pickups,” and a full two thirds reported that over 60 per cent were. Unlike females, many males are interested simply in a rapid gratification of their sexual desire with as few preliminaries as possible and no emotional involvement; in brief, they are looking for a “pickup” or “one-night stand.” If such men are exclusively heterosexual, they have considerable difficulty in finding females willing to accept them on these terms without payment. However, if they are homosexually inclined, they can easily find other males with the same desire for a rapid and brief sexual encounter. Indeed, a minority of males, known colloquially as “oncers,” are not interested in continuing a sexual relationship beyond the first act—they are interested in new conquests only. Their reaction is analogous to that of the average person who has the opportunity to see again a motion picture he has already seen once: the initial experience was pleasurable, but why go through it again?

Since many of the partners of the homosexual offenders vs. adults are “pickups” and since the great majority are adults, it is not surprising to find more mutuality in the question of who initiated the sexual relationship than in the case of the homosexual offenders vs. children and minors. Forty-three per cent of the homosexual offenders vs. adults habitually made the first moves, 32 per cent usually let the other male make the overtures, and one quarter were equally balanced between these two alternatives. The pattern is in contrast to that of the homosexual offenders vs. children and minors who usually took the initiative, and also in contrast to that of the prison group who, despite their extensive homosexual experience, were strongly inclined to let the other males make the initial moves.

There is nothing unusual about the commercial, homosexual activity of the homosexual offenders vs. adults, of whom 70 per cent had paid or had been paid. Like the other homosexual offenders, rather few had been prostitutes (16 per cent). One quarter had paid, but had never been paid; the reverse was true of slightly more; and nearly one fifth had both taken and given payment. The division of those who paid but had never received pay and those who received pay but had never paid is a singularly efficient method of estimating the degree of homosexual interest. In a rank-order of those who only paid, the homosexual offenders lead and the prison group is last; in a rank-order of those who were only paid, the prison group leads the homosexual offenders.

Deep emotional involvements reported as love by the interviewees typify the homosexual offenders vs. adults with extensive homosexual histories. Eighty-one per cent of them said they had loved another male (a larger proportion than in any other group), and 63 per cent had loved more than one male—again the largest proportion. One can say that multiple homosexual love affairs are a characteristic of the group under discussion.

Of the groups involved in this comparison of individuals with extensive homosexual experience, the homosexual offenders vs. adults had the largest number (60 per cent) of persons who betrayed their homosexuality through behavior or dress. Half of those persons who reported or revealed homosexual mannerisms of any sort had mannerisms that were quite obvious. A detailed study of mannerisms has no place in this volume, but a. brief discussion is worth including. At one end of the range are the blatant mannerisms that for the most part are imitations of what our society regards as female behavior and dress. Because of historical factors and a primitive basic concept that all sociosexual activity must have one partner in a “masculine” and the other in a “feminine” role, a substantial number of males who are predominantly homosexual feel impelled to adopt what they consider female characteristics—for example, a high voice, fluttering hand gestures, long hair, plucked eyebrows, a hip-rolling walk, etc. The result in many cases is closer to caricature than imitation. It is ironic that in a sexual situation from which females are excluded (and even involving males who may be completely devoid of heterosexual interest) these allegedly feminine traits are employed despite their being logically incongruous. In some cases wherein a male construes his homosexual interest as evidence of a feminine component within himself, these obvious mannerisms express his feeling that he is acting according to his “true nature.” In other cases die behavior seems purely a matter of conforming to a stereotype, and the individual assumes or drops the mannerisms to suit die immediate situation. The efficacy of obvious mannerisms in obtaining sexual partners is dubious: many males, including predominantly homosexual males, are repelled rather than attracted. One of the illogicalities of homosexual life is that many of these men would like sexual relations with what they call “normal” or “straight” (i.e., heterosexual) partners. A homosexual male with this desire will express revulsion, in derogatory terms, at the idea of sexual contact with a known homosexual. On the other hand, obviousness has certain advantages: it clearly identifies the person as receptive to homosexual advances, and it does attract certain predominantly heterosexual males who regard him as being partly female. Indeed, some predominantly heterosexual males do not consider such a sexual liaison really homosexual.

At the other end of the range are subtle mannerisms that can be detected only by those who know a great deal about homosexuality. These mannerisms are for the most part slight exaggerations of, or departures from, socially acceptable behavior or dress. Any single item has little significance, but if a number exist, they form a symptom-syndrome that is quite diagnostic. Such subtle items are frequently associated with upper socioeconomic level tastes and behavior: over-meticulous dress, too well-groomed fingernails, a gentle modulated voice, an interest in aesthetics, etc. Such things have, in our culture, a vague feminine significance: women pay attention to clothes, men are less concerned; women tend their nails, men are careless about them; women are supposed to have quiet modulated voices, men are loud and assertive. In brief, we have the old stereotype of males being rough and coarse while women are gentle and dainty. Some less obvious mannerisms, however, have no social class association—for example, the glance that is maintained a fraction of a second too long, or the absence of the appraising look that predominantly heterosexual males automatically bestow on passing or nearby females.

Among the homosexual offenders with extensive homosexual experience, the homosexual offenders vs. adults expressed the least regret concerning their homosexuality; 46 per cent said they regretted it, including 27 per cent who reported much regret. Both percentages are considerably less than the equivalent figures reported by the other homosexual offenders. However, the members of the prison group with extensive homosexual experience expressed even far less. Again one wonders how much regret the homosexual offenders vs. adults would have expressed had we interviewed them prior to their initial convictions. Asking an offender to discount his conviction in evaluating whether or not he is sorry about his sexual way of life is almost asking the impossible.

*210\161\2*

There is nothing distinctive about the homosexual offenders vs. children with respect to whether they were only children or whether or not they had older or younger siblings. Like the other homosexual offenders, however, they did not get along with their fathers at ages fourteen to seventeen; in fact, the homosexual offenders as a whole had the worst paternal relationship of any tripartite group, though the homosexual offenders vs. children had a somewhat better relationship than the other two homosexual groups.

The reverse is true in regard to their mothers, with whom they had one of the worst relationships of any of the groups, while the homosexual offenders vs. minors and adults had a better (though still below-average) record.

Nevertheless, the homosexual offenders vs. children exhibit a strong partiality for their mothers: 56 per cent reported they got along better with their mothers, 29 per cent got along equally well with both parents, and 15 per cent preferred their fathers, this strong maternal preference typifies all the homosexual offenders, a preference they share with the exhibitionists and the heterosexual aggressors. Partiality, especially if pronounced, would seem an ill omen.

A higher percentage (62 per cent) of homosexual offenders vs. children than of any other sex offenders came from broken homes, except the heterosexual aggressors vs. children, who have 64 per cent. The breakup occurred early in their lives, in 44 percent of the cases before the boys were ten. Moreover, the homosexual offenders are unique in that a relatively large number of their homes were broken up before they were five. These offenders had the second youngest average age at the breakup of the home—4.8 years.

Consequently our question, “How did your parents get along together when you were in your middle teens?” applies primarily to subsequent family units. The parents in these later marriages did not have satisfactory relationships: 45 per cent (a relatively small proportion) got along well and 35 per cent (a relatively large proportion) got along badly, giving in summary the next-to-worst interparental relationship of any group. This unfortunate parental situation is characteristic of all homosexual offenders.

The high percentage of broken homes is necessarily mirrored in a tabulation of the number of years that the subjects spent in homes in which both a husband and wife were present; here they are below most sex offenders in this respect, but above them in the number of years spent in all-female households.

At ages ten to eleven the homosexual offenders Vs. children present a curious picture as far as the number and sex of their playmates are concerned. They rank second among those with numerous male and female companions, and again second among those with numerous female companions, yet one third of them completely lacked female playmates at this age. To put it another way, one third had no heterosexual social life but the remaining two thirds socialized unusually well with females. The tendency for all the homosexual offenders to have had numerous girl playmates (they rank first, second, and third in this respect) suggests a “sissy” situation. The homosexual offenders vs. children are unlike the other homosexual offenders in that such a large proportion of them had no female companions; relatively few of the homosexual offenders vs. minors and adults share this lack.

Like the other homosexual offenders, the homosexual offenders vs. children were quite apt to have had prepubertal sex play: 56 per cent had heterosexual play and 60 per cent had homosexual play. Significantly, the homosexual offenders are the only groups in which homosexual experience outweighs heterosexual experience. Also, more of the homosexual offenders (almost one quarter) confined their prepubertal sociosexual activity to males: in a rank-order of those whose sex play was exclusively homosexual they rank first, second, and third. However, the homosexual offenders vs. children are unlike the other homosexual offenders in that nearly one fifth of them engaged exclusively in heterosexual play; the other homosexual groups do not exceed 15 per cent. This heterosexuality was of short duration in comparison to the homosexuality: one quarter of the future homosexual offenders vs. children experienced three or more years of heterosexual play, whereas over half had three or more years of homosexual play.

Similarly, the percentage with well-developed heterosexual techniques (mouth-genital contact and coitus) is small in comparison with other types of sex offenders, while the number with elaborate homosexual techniques is comparatively large. In general, this holds for all homosexual offenders. For example, in a rank-order of those with heterosexual mouth-genital contact and coitus, the homosexual offenders are in the lower half of the scale, whereas in rank-orders of homosexual masturbation, mouth-genital contact, and anal coitus they tend not only to be in the upper half, but to monopolize the first, second, and third ranks. These comparisons tend to make the homosexual offender vs. children seem more homosexual in his early life than he actually was; in terms of absolute numbers essentially the same number had heterosexual coitus as had homosexual anal activity.

More of the homosexual offenders were, while preadolescent, the recipients of approaches by adult males than were the members of any other sex-offender group: roughly a third had such experience. Note that only 8 per cent of the control group were similarly approached. The approaches turned into overt physical contact for between 20 and 28 per cent of the three homosexual-offender groups—higher percentages than exist for other groups. So few adult females are interested in preadolescent boys that the percentages in this category are so small as to render comparisons of modest value. Nevertheless, the homosexual offenders tend to be low or intermediate in this type of experience.

The record of the homosexual offenders’ childhood contacts with adult males immediately suggests that their experiences may have predisposed them to subsequent homosexual activity and, ultimately, to committing the acts that resulted in their convictions. This suggestion leads one into a chicken-egg paradox: was the experience with adults a causative factor of the homosexuality or a by-product of pre-existing homosexuality? Both explanations are probably true. It is, however, worth noting that the contact with adults ordinarily came later than homosexual experience with other children. Yet, physical sexual contact with an adult male would be a graphic demonstration to the child that some adult males can find sexual gratification with boys, and this concept could be of importance when the child himself becomes adult, particularly if he recalls the experience as having been pleasurable.

The homosexual offenders vs. children, like all homosexual offenders, had relatively poor childhood health, 60 per cent reporting good health (the second smallest proportion recorded), and 14 per cent (the second largest percentage) reporting ill health. In short, the homosexual offenders vs. children were the next to the most unhealthy group, the unhealthiest being the homosexual offenders vs. adults.

The homosexual offender vs. children ranks fifth (with 47 per cent) in order of those with prepubertal masturbatory experience. This high incidence is typical of homosexual offenders, who also tend to have begun such masturbation at an early age: the homosexual offenders vs. children rank second along with the homosexual offenders vs. adults in the percentage (60 per cent) who began before age ten. This record, coupled with their relatively high incidence of sex play, makes the homosexual offenders vs. children one of the most sexually active groups in preadolescence—again a distinction shared by the two other homosexual-offender groups.

*168\161\2*

A “middle of the road” tendency is seen in the accumulative incidence of premarital coitus displayed by the incest offenders vs. children. However, since in all groups marriage is frequently preceded by coitus with the fianc?e, and since all the incest offenders married, ultimately 96 per cent of the incest offenders vs. children had premarital coitus.

This increase in coitus as marriage nears is seen in the age-specific incidence of premarital coitus with companions. The proportions for these offenders are moderate until age-period 21-25 when they rise to fourth place with a figure of 86 per cent, and in the following period every male still single was having coitus.

The age-specific incidence of premarital coitus with prostitutes is moderate except from twenty-one to twenty-five, when these offenders rank second with 77 per cent of their members involved.

Early in life their coital frequencies before marriage are moderate; subsequently they developed higher frequencies, especially between ages twenty-six to thirty, when the average (median) incest offender vs. children ranks second with a frequency of slightly over once a week. The great bulk of this was with companions.

The frequency of premarital coitus with prostitutes was relatively high at ages sixteen to twenty, putting these offenders in second rank in mean frequency (about once in three weeks) and fourth in median frequency (6 per year). At other ages their frequencies are unexceptional, often being close to or less than those of the control group.

The incest offenders vs. children are not distinctive in the average (median) number of companions and prostitutes with whom they had had coitus. However, they are unusual in two other respects. First of all, they had coitus with a very large number of prostitutes prior to marriage (18, a number shared only by the aggressors vs. children). However, they show no early predilection for paid contacts, for only a moderate number (21 per cent) had their first coitus with a prostitute.

Second, the average number of extramarital partners is low (four) despite the fact that such a large proportion of them had extramarital coitus.

In their early teens these offenders derived a quarter of their total sexual outlet from premarital coitus with companions, far exceeding the other incest offenders in this respect. Indeed, in early life these men tend to rank fairly high—fourth or fifth—and in age-period 26-30 they obtained nearly half of their orgasms from this source, consequently ranking second.

Concerning proportion of total outlet drawn from premarital coitus with prostitutes, these offenders rank second in age-period 16-20 with 9 per cent; third in the following age-period with 13 per cent; and occupy intermediate positions in the rank-orders thereafter. It is worth noting that between ages sixteen and twenty-five all three of the incest-offender groups rank high in the proportion of total outlet constituted by premarital coitus with prostitutes.

While we find nothing unusual in the circumstances of their first coitus, more of these offenders than those of any other group reported that their initial coitus was unpleasant. Only 46 per cent (the smallest recorded proportion) recalled it as definitely enjoyable, while 37 per cent (the largest proportion) found it either unpleasant or only slightly pleasurable. Even the most homosexually oriented group, the homosexual offenders vs. adults, found more pleasure in their first coitus.

An examination of the restraints on premarital coitus reported by these offenders reveals only one fact worth noting: they were strongly desirous of coitus; only 9 per cent reported a lack of interest or satiation—the smallest percentage in this category. Fifty-seven per cent, a moderate figure, stated that lack of opportunity was a strong factor in restraining their activity. This does not mean that, as a group, they were socially inept, since they reported an average number of petting and coital partners and an average number of female companions including sexual partners. Nor did any particularly large or small number report moral restraints or fear of consequences.

*126\161\2*

While our analyses of sexual response to the sight or thought of females, males, and pornography showed nothing noteworthy about the aggressors vs. children, we did find that a relatively large (but absolutely small) proportion of them (12 per cent) were sexually aroused by pictures or stories with sadomasochistic content. In this they rank fourth, and below the other aggressors.

They have the dubious distinction of including by far the largest proportion of alcoholics—a full 40 per cent, a figure almost double that of the next highest ranking group and over six times that of the control group. It will later be seen that many of their offenses were committed while they were drunk and, naturally, alcoholics often are.

Almost as many had used drugs or marijuana. This is again the largest proportion, but whereas these aggressors were unrivaled in alcoholism there are two other groups (the aggressors vs. minors and the prison group) who nearly match their total drug record. The aggressors vs. children should not be regarded as drug addicts—there were none among them; rather they owe their drug status to an unusually strong predilection for marijuana. Nearly 38 per cent smoked marijuana experimentally or occasionally (none were habitual users), a figure more than double that of any other group. Similarly a relatively large number (8 per cent, a figure equaled only by the prison group) experimented with opiates, but none became addicted. In brief, these aggressors present a curious picture of extensive experimentation with drugs but without addiction, which may stem from the fact that alcohol and drugs are seldom used at the same time. It is almost as though these men experimented extensively and widely with chemical escapes from reality and chose alcohol.

In many respects gambling is like the use of drugs or alcohol—it seems to stimulate, it is an escape from drab or oppressive reality, and it can be psychologically addicting. Hence, it is no surprise to find that the aggressors vs. children are rather ardent gamblers. They and the prison group had more men with gambling experience (about three fifths) than any other group, and they rank below only the prison group and the offenders vs. minors in the number who gambled for income rather than sport, about one fifth of them having derived a significant portion of their income from this source.

Lastly, the aggressors vs. children were one of the dullest groups in the sense that a relatively large proportion of them rated below our category of average intelligence.

*84\161\2*

The mental defectives constitute the largest variety of offenders vs. children except for the pedophiles; perhaps as many as one seventh to one fifth of the offenders vs. children fall into this classification. While they are not immune from other problems, their offense behavior is due chiefly to their mental deficiency: they rate no higher than middle-grade moron, and quite a few have been in institutions for the feebleminded. The great majority are not troubled by feelings of shyness or inferiority, nor does sexual deprivation seem an important factor, although about a third of the men have rather blank sociosexual histories —defectives often have low sex drive and expectations.

Their offense behavior sometimes appears to be the consequence of lack of appreciation of or thought for social rules—a sort of unthinking simple-minded opportunism. In other instances one feels the offender was for all practical purposes an overgrown child indulging in prepubertal sex play. Data concerning duration of activity with children are hard to obtain, but in most instances such activity continues sporadically over a period of years. When the defectives become aged they tend to blend with the senile deteriorates.

They are apt to have very little sexual activity of any sort, and their petting with children seems as much a matter of seeking attention and affection as of seeking specifically sexual gratification. As an illustration, we have the case of a feeble-minded man of nearly sixty whose heterosexual activity with adults consisted solely of experiences with prostitutes plus one brief marriage. He had been fond of young children and babies for some time and took to petting little girls who came around the shack he inhabited as a railroad flagman. On the other hand, a similarly feeble-minded male in his thirties had had coitus with a hundred companions and several hundred prostitutes, supplementing this with substantial outlet from masturbation and nocturnal emissions. This ample sexual activity did not prevent him from approaching young boys and girls when he encountered them in parks and motion-picture theaters. One has the impression that he regarded any human of reasonable physical size as a sexual object.

*41\161\2*

Red is the colour of energy and action and the use of large quantities is usually too overpowering in a bedroom. Red is the colour of sexual passion and excitement. If your partner redecorates your bedroom in red it certainly indicates that he or she wants a lot more passion, excitement and sex from the relationship. This would be a very obvious indication of needs. A more subtle introduction of red as a part of the redecoration of a bedroom indicates that more passion and excitement in the relationship is a desirable outcome.

If you have chosen a lot of red in your bedroom, you are an energetic and exciting person to be with, although your partner may find it difficult to keep up with you. You love being the centre of attention and may have an inflated ego. Routine is not a part of your life as you move from one venture to another, looking for the next exciting and stimulating adventure. You tend to be impulsive, competitive and aggressive and yearn for excitement in all life has to offer and as fast as possible. Relishing red, you like to live life in the fast lane, especially in bed!

Red is best used as an accent in any decorating scheme, as it is too action-oriented to create a calm and relaxing sleeping environment.

*48\74\8*

Many people have embraced a major white look at different times in their lives. It can occur when seeking a clean start after a major emotional change, perhaps after a marriage breakup, or at the end of a relationship, or after physical or emotional upheaval. White helps during times of stress and creates a clean slate from which to make a new start.

If you have chosen a predominantly white bedroom, fairness and balance will be important to you. You will be cautious in your intimate life, and tend to be a perfectionist who is often over-critical of yourself and others. Self-sufficiency will be a trait you have developed. Being the symbol of peace, white creates a feeling of tranquility and hope for the future.

With a wistful white decor, you risk creating an atmosphere of sterility. If this is not what you want, add some colour to the room such as pale pink or pale green to stimulate the emotions and senses.

*65\74\8*

So what about the personality of a typical Romantic? As we discussed earlier, body types and personalities mirror bedroom styles. This room is you at your most intimate even if you share it with your partner. Imagine yourself as a complete Romantic lying resplendent on soft sheer fabric. Imagine yourself tantalised by satin, lace, or perfumed pillows and a partner wearing the sexiest next to nothing, white or pastel underwear. The Romantic can show you all these pleasures. Their bedrooms invite you to indulge. So be indulged and expect it from them all the time in their behaviour.

Romantics see themselves as the most vulnerable, the easiest to bruise, even the saddest of all people. They are more needy than most and need to be indulged. They are flirtatious. They want you, and they think and say it often. If they are more reserved they will think it more than verbalise their feelings. Expect a lot of romantic, sensual talking between the sheets. And on the telephone. They know how to use their voice, their eyes and their bodies. It’s not just the sexual you they want, it’s also being around the physical you. They want to hold hands. They stroke you. They fight-for the limelight. When two Romantics get together, that, as a Romantic woman friend told us, ‘is wonderful but dreadful. He wants to be centre stage but I do too. I saw his bedroom and felt so envious. That’s how I wanted mine to look.’

They want sensuality and romance to be the most important thing in your life as it is in theirs. Lead with your heart. They certainly will. A Romantic is very choosy about where they have sex. If you are thinking of a hotel, for instance, check it out very carefully and be prepared for rejection and complaints if romance, cleanliness and sensuality isn’t expressed in the room. And definitely forget the camping holiday.

The Romantic is of medium height, usually, but not always, has softness and roundness in their facial appearance. This could be represented in full cheeks, dimpled chin, roundish or heart shaped face, full lips and big eyes. Romantics more than other styles like lustre, soft and subtle, in their clothing – a silk blouse, stockings with a subtle sheen, a suit or tie with a slight sheen. Both men and women also have curvy bodies.

*85\74\8*

It doesn’t matter how small your budget or how tiny your bedroom, choose to have it reflect the real you. Sit in it one morning or evening and really look closely at what you have. Notice the colours, the bed linen, the lamps, the bedside tables. Start listing the changes you could make just by changing some colours. If you are frightened of making a ghastly mistake, then choose a neutral background for walls, ceiling and floor and add colour with accessories. Visit homes for sale on ‘open for inspection’ days for practical examples, or gather magazines to give you new ideas. Make notes when you find a home and bedroom similar to your heart’s desire and discuss the situation with your bedroom partner. If he or she is negative about changes suggest very small ones. Don’t let their inertia stop you from moving the relationship into sweeter waters.

Change your bedroom around. You probably can’t change the position of the bed, but you can change where chests of drawers, a dressing table or a chair are placed. A fresh coat of paint on the walls or furniture will change your bedroom dramatically. Try different sheets on the bed, or perhaps add cushions to your bed. Lots of cushions in harmony with the bedroom and bed linen give the appearance of generosity, a good attribute for the romantic. The colours you choose reveal a lot about how you are feeling. Listen to your intuition on this. Above all, think romance. Think sensuality.

Stand at the door of your bedroom and consider every surface. Perhaps you have a few books on bedside tables or on the chest of drawers. It’s a sign of an inquisitive mind. However, a virtual library in the bedroom confuses the purpose of the room.

A mirror is a very good accessory in your bedroom and depending on where you place it and what you do in sight of it, can be very sensual. A mirror anywhere in the room reflects light and energy, enlarges and inspires the imagination. Round mirrors are especially good for enhancing relationships, according to the principles of Feng Shui. Curves are more romantic than straight-edged lines, in Western eyes too. Look at decorating fashions. Mirrored wardrobes are not particularly romantic – these days we enjoy the cocooning effect of smaller bedrooms and don’t need a mirrored wall of aluminium doors.

*105\74\8*

Rule 1: Know yourself

A good base to work from is to get in touch with the real and authentic you. Who are you? Activate your senses by discovering what colours you love, what sounds excite you, what scents inspire you, what foods you really love, what textures soothe you. Think about the places you love to go, the types of movies and books you enjoy, the music that makes you laugh and the music that brings tears to your eyes, and the lands you’d love to travel to. What would you like your life to be like in three, five and ten years time? Spend a day alone with yourself. You are important. Know yourself inside out, backwards and forwards, and in every way. Accept all your positive attributes and be prepared to work on eliminating the negatives. Then move forward into creating the best life for yourself you can.

Rule 2: know your partner

Accept your partner as he or she is. You can’t change anyone but yourself, so don’t try. We all have agendas that others can’t relate to. This is normal and part of being human.

Learn everything you can about your partner. Understand his or her intimate style and the seduction techniques you can use.

Discover what stimulates his or her senses when it comes to colours, sounds, scents, foods and textures. Develop a list of your partner’s favourite flowers, chocolates, cars, sports, songs, singers, movies, foods, fruits, vegetables, desserts and so on, so you can use the information for romantic, loving interludes. Know your loved one’s clothing sizes, including underwear and lingerie sizes.

*125\74\8*

Related Posts:

• HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS VS. ADULTS: EXTENSIVE HOMOSEXUALITY
• HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS VS. CHILDREN: EARLY LIFE
• INCEST OFFENDERS VS. CHILDREN: PREMARITAL COITUS
• HETEROSEXUAL AGGRESSORS VS. CHILDREN: OTHER FACTORS
• VARIETIES OF SEX OFFENDERS VS. CHILDREN: MENTAL DEFECTIVES
• COLOUR IN YOUR BEDROOM:IF YOUR ROOM IS PREDOMINANTLY RED
• BEDROOM BEHAVIOURS:IF YOUR ROOM IS PREDOMINANTLY WHITE OR SOFT WHITE
• BEDROOM BEHAVIOURS: TYPICAL ROMANTICS
• STRATEGY TO ENHANCE YOUR RELATIONSHIPS: BEGIN THE CREATIVE MAKE-OVER OF YOUR BEDROOM
• GROWING OLD – IMMUNITY

Newer Posts »