Adding on to the previous comment, it seems that the bulk of Yahoo! articles are built around a very materialistic worldview that focuses on short-term individual gain. It spans both genders in the dating section, but it also plays out in the corporate/work articles about personal advancement and success strategies. I guess I take solace in the fact that the stories are so shallow and the advice is usually so poor that anyone who would put these ideas into practice would quickly be in for a reality check. It does say something about the Yahoo! administrators that they place their perceived audience on the level of hackish authors, therapists and advice columnists.

Thanks, Yahoo! Contributor, for showing that smart people leave comments on these columns too -- that's probably the most intelligent and well-phrased comment I've read in the Yahoo! Advice section.

The most significant part of being seen as attractive is to be honestly attentive to him or her. Listen, listen, listen! Watch someone you know who is both liked by friends and attractive to new people. He or she pays intense attention to what the other person is saying. While engaging someone, they should be the sole focus of your attention. Simple eye contact (No glancing around, over the shoulder, etc.), & other body language: leaning forward...just a little, nodding, murmuring assent, slight head tilt...works wonders! And makes Both people feel good. Watch at any gathering, and the people who are most liked/successful very often aren't stunningly attractive...but they know how to make other people feel attractive by demonstrating they find the other person interesting, worthwhile, and thus almost always responsive in kind. Leave the ego at home if you want to be considered attractive.

I got more out of the comments than I did out of the article.

You guys are all right-on. This society is becoming materialistic and self-centered, and people seem to care more about flings, one-night stands, and 'scores', than any mature, fulfilling relationship. I'd also like to add that most(or all) of the women mentioned were rich or famous, which is of course enough to get some guy in bed, but not much more. At the same time, although I wouldn't do that, whatever rocks your boat, and if they're happy, that's their business, although I still wouldn't use them as role models. (by the way, man speaking)

Yes, this article does talk about skills that were used in an advantageous way. BUT women could learn these things for many ways, depending on who the women IS. These articles can be used for good intentions as well. If you can imagine your girl friend or wife being able to make your blood boil and passion rise way past the "honey-moon". If you have a women able to do this, you'd be married soon if not already. From the womens' perspective you have a man who means the world to you, why wouldn't you want him lusting for you until you two are old and fall apart instead of falling-out of love. I myself love to drive my husband crazy for many reasons; Bordom issue- if everything was normal he'd get bord soon, Self satifaction- being able to please him by seduction is worth every effort to keep him happy, Distance- I plan to keep my husband happy for a long time, keeping him interested is what you need to worry about (not if someone is playing games). Because in real life everyone plays some games, even little innocent ones. If she is Cleopatra then you can imagine her uses of these skills. What I am saying is you have to "see" the woman for what see is; a love to please/tease from passion, or Cleopatra. You have to find out for yourself what you really want and if they are really that bad. ( Mr. Roger's life or your own) (psss... happily married and highly seductive for the right reasons, woman.)

I didn't learn a bloody thing... Then again, I'm a mad Pimpette...

The women that I have know that were masters of the art of seduction were the source of the most pleasure and the most pain.

I think Charles hit the nail on the head, and with such precision..

I would just like to say that I went out to look back at the pictures of the women discussed in the article and I personally (maybe I'm just odd) don't think that they were that homely at all. On a second note I agree with others who wrote in saying that these women were self serving and often times manipulative, but I also feel that women can learn from this. Perhaps because these women were motivated to find their own path and have their own goals, they were that much more interesting and appealing to men.