Which item of clothing is guaranteed to turn you on the most?



For me it is all about the short skirt. A short tight black skirt as modelled by the excellent Belle (above). Particularly when worn in a smart "business" context. It fascinates me that I'm not in that industry, yet I find this clothing just as alluring as a businessman would.

It also fascinates me that clothing such as this is out of favor with womankind. Now there are many good reasons for this, such as discouraging sexual harassment in the workplace and encouraging an environment in which female professionals can flourish on merit, and not on sex appeal. But what I've noticed is that women who are prepared to buck this trend do so with a nerve and an audacity that is just as sexy as the clothing itself. I just love the sight of a smart and sexy businesswoman striding purposefully down the street, heels pounding rhythmically as she absorbs the stares and glares into her stride. That kind of self-confidence is the sexiest thing in the world. Because she knows that, ultimately, they're just jealous. The men are jealous because they can't have her, and the women are jealous because they can't be her.

And don't you think that self-righteousness undermines intelligence? Because intelligence is sexy too.



Damn, she even makes squatting look professional!

Perhaps my favorite kind of tease is the understated subtle tease. The kind of tease who, with the minimum of effort, manages to induce the maximum effect.

Ideally she will be some form of professional, so maybe she will be someone you meet through work. So the situation will be quite formal, and any possibility of sexual contact is completely out of the question. But she is so adept at what she does, she manages to lure you into desiring her without actually doing anything. She knows she is having this effect, but skilfully manages to distance herself. Thereby any move towards her by the guy would be a result of his own folly, and not as a result of anything she has done. She's offering him an illusion, and by definition he cannot have it.



And doesn't Stacey (above) look well siuited for this purpose?

Imagine you're sat at her desk discussing something important with her, but it's her desk and she is in control. She is being the consummate professional, but she's fixing you with a steely glare and a wry smile. You're starting to lose track of what you're saying, but she isn't. She's completely in control.

Now let's imagine that she gets up from her seat, and strolls confidently round to your side of the table. She perches herself on the edge of the table, close enough to touch. The flirtaciousness has gone up a notch...she's playing with her hair, pursing her lips. Slowly stroking her own thigh with her nails, right there in front of you. She's attentively listening to every word you say, and touching your arm whenever she agrees with you. The steely glare has gone, to be replaced by a playful gaze...





She's brushing right up against you now. She knows you're hard. So, are you going to touch her and risk the consequences?

It seems there is a thriving orgasm denial community on the web, where the woman (usually a mistress) is the denier, and the man (usually submissive, if not a stated submissive) is the denied. It seems that within this context, the roles are very clearly defined. The woman is in charge, period.

Which presents me with a bit of a dilemma, because in my writing there is a lot of roleplay interchange. In some posts the tease is a man, and in others a woman. Sometimes I am using a male narrator, and at other times a woman. And I'm noticing that this seems to put me out of sync with a lot of the tease stuff that's already out there.

So the question I'm asking myself is this: Do I write exclusively orgasm denial stuff aimed at men, for the sake of a target audience? Or do I carry on doing what I'm doing, for the sake of artistic integrity? I think I already know the answer to that question, and I think you do too. But it's a question worth asking, because I think there exists an element of suspicion toward those who do not define the boundaries clearly enough.