The average homosexual offender vs. adults was twenty-nine years old at the time of the offense that led to his conviction for this type of sexual behavior. Of all the comparative groups, fewest of these offenders had ever married: 80 per cent were never married, 6 per cent were married at the time, and 14 per cent were separated, divorced, or widowed.

For about three fifths of the men this was their first sex-offense conviction; they were less inclined than the other homosexual offenders to prior sex-offense convictions—probably because their sexual partners were of a more suitable age. Furthermore, since they are the most homosexually oriented group, the probabilities of offenses against females are proportionately reduced. It was the second sex-offense conviction for nearly one fifth of the men, as contrasted to over one quarter of the homosexual offenders vs. minors and one third of the homosexual offenders vs. children. For close to 8 per cent it was their third, for 4 per cent their fourth, and for 7 per cent their fifth or more. This latter figure is high compared with the other homosexual groups, and the explanation is that the homosexual offender vs. adults is frequently convicted for soliciting and simply pays a fine or receives a suspended sentence. This essentially mild punishment has little lasting deterrent effect, although it breeds caution. The offenders vs. minors or children are often not treated as misdemeanants, but as felons; their convictions take them out of circulation for lengthy periods of time.

Consequently, it is more difficult for them to accumulate records of five or more sex-offense convictions.

About 4 per cent seem to have had serious mental problems prior to the offense. This is a comparatively moderate figure, and less than that of the other homosexual offenders.

Use of narcotics at the time of the offense was so rare as to be insignificant, and of the four men involved none were using “heavy” drugs such as morphine or heroin. Alcohol played a small role: 15 per cent were drunk at the time and another 9 per cent mildly intoxicated. These figures are moderate to somewhat low compared to those of other sex offenders.

Seldom—in 3 per cent of the cases, to be exact—were more than two males involved. Group activity is not a feature of these offenses.

Of all die sex offenses, homosexual offenses vs. adults appear to be the most premeditated. Compared to heterosexuality, homosexuality is a minority phenomenon, and consequently unsought and unexpected opportunity occurs less often. True, the cruising homosexual may meet a partner by chance, but it is more than likely that he was searching and hoping that chance would reward his quest. Moreover, since the taboo concerns him, the homosexual is less likely than the heterosexual to drift unwittingly into sexual situations; he is generally alert to nuances and minor clues.

Most of the offenses (34 per cent) took place in residences, and next most often in public toilets (21 per cent), where adult solicitation and contact are common. Third rank (19 per cent) was out-of-doors, and automobiles were fourth.

We lack the precise ages for a large proportion of the partners of these homosexual offenders, but for the 53 per cent for whom this data is available the average age was eighteen. Allowance must be made for a small bias here in that there may well have been a tendency to comment on the partner’s age only if he were young. Some three fifths of the partners were strangers to the offenders, 7 per cent were acquaintances, and nearly one third were friends. The high percentage of strangers reflects the promiscuous nomadic habits so common in predominantly homosexual adult males.

A full fifth of the convictions did not stem from physical contact; most of these were cases of solicitation. When contact did occur, fellation was the commonest technique, being present in 55 per cent of the cases. Manual genital stimulation ranked second (26 per cent), nongenital petting third (9 per cent, chiefly instances where the contact was interrupted before genital stimulation took place), and anal coitus was fourth (6 per cent). An additional 3.5 per cent consisted of a combination of fellation and anal coitus. These percentages are quite similar to those of the homosexual offenders vs. minors.

In ascertaining the cooperation or resistance of the adult object of the offense we can utilize only those cases where relevant information was available both from the offender and from the official record. Only 152 such cases are available, but in these 93 per cent are agreed that the solicited male was encouraging or at least passive, and 5 percent agree that he objected. In 2 per cent of the cases the official record reports resistance, while the offender claims that he was encouraged. All in all, the great majority of homosexual contacts between adults take place with mutual consent; homosexual rape is rare and usually confined to prisons and hobo jungles. In only 3 per cent of our total of 292 homosexual offenses vs. adults was there physical duress; in these eight cases severe force was employed in four. We have no instance where a homosexual relationship with an adult was compelled by threat alone.

As far as the probability of arrest is concerned we lack sufficient data in one fifth of the cases to make a judgment. In the remainder a full quarter of the offenses were so discreet that arrest was unlikely; in about three fifths it was possible but not probable; and in 15 per cent of the offenses the behavior was so foolish or flagrant that arrest was very probable.

The generally reasonable precautions taken by homosexual offenders vs. adults are reflected in the small number of instances that were reported by the object (11 per cent), his friends or relatives (9 per cent), or witnesses (5 per cent). The offenders obviously chose places and persons they considered safe. However, they underestimated the activity of the police, which accounted for over two thirds of the arrests. Slightly over one third of the offenses were seen by the police, not infrequently from some vantage point where they were on watch. Nearly one fifth were discovered by the police in the process of other investigations. Lastly, one fifth of the offenses stemmed from unequivocal entrapment: a plainclothes man or a person employed by or persuaded by the police made himself available for homosexual solicitation and in more cases than not encouraged it. When a homosexual male made an approach he was usually permitted to make a physical contact or to become verbally specific about his desires, and at this point he was arrested by the “bait” or by police or detectives waiting nearby.

Here we must point out that entrapment breeds many impostors who go through the procedure, “arrest” the offender, and subsequently extort money from him to “forget the case” or to “fix” law-enforcement officials. Some of these impostors are remarkably bold, sometimes putting the “arrested” man in a car and driving him to the precinct station where he is offered a last chance to pay them off—a chance that is virtually always accepted.

Slightly over three quarters of the offenders, a figure both absolutely and relatively large, fully confessed their behavior to the authorities. Some 85 per cent admitted it to us; no other group gave us as many full admissions of guilt, although the homosexual offenders vs. minors were only a few percentage points behind. Qualified admissions accounted for 5 to 6 per cent, and 2 per cent claimed they were so drunk or upset at the time of offense that they could neither admit nor deny their behavior. Sixteen per cent denied the offense to the authorities, and slightly less than half as many did so to us. It is interesting that almost the same percentage of heterosexual offenders vs. adults denied their offense behavior to the authorities as did these homosexual offenders, even though the latter were arrested for more taboo behavior. One often has the impression that the homosexual offender, faced at last with the catastrophe he has always dreaded, is almost relieved to drop the cloak of secrecy and say, “Yes, I’m homosexual: do with me what you will.”

In terms of legal plea, 78 per cent pleaded guilty, nearly 19 per cent not guilty, and the remainder made no plea but threw themselves upon the mercy of the court.

*214\161\2*

The premarital coital history of the homosexual offenders vs. children is one of a slow increase with ultimately 75 per cent (the second smallest proportion) having had premarital coitus by the age at which they were interviewed. The median individual was thirty-six years old at interview.

Like all homosexual offenders, these men have low age-specific incidence figures for premarital coitus with companions. Usually they rank third or fourth lowest with from 52 to 69 per cent of them reporting such coitus within any five-year age-period between ages sixteen and thirty-five. The age-specific incidence of premarital coitus with prostitutes is also small, which is typical of all homosexual offenders. After age fifteen only about one quarter to one third of these still unmarried offenders had recourse to prostitutes within any five-year age-period.

In comparison to other groups a greater reliance upon prostitutes rather than companions is seen in the frequencies of premarital coitus. In coitus with companions they display low to intermediate frequencies (the median being around once every three weeks or slightly less) but in coitus with prostitutes they rank high: the average (median) homosexual offender vs. children is third between ages sixteen and twenty (once every seven weeks) and first between twenty-one and thirty (almost once in three weeks). Between twenty-six and thirty they are the only ones whose average (median) coital frequency with prostitutes exceeds that with companions.

A study of the average number of the premarital coital partners reveals that the homosexual offenders vs. children exceed the control group in numbers of both types: companions and prostitutes. In the number of prostitutes with whom they had premarital coitus they tie for fourth place (16 prostitutes) with the incest offenders vs. adults. This ranking is due to the fact that so many homosexual offenders vs. children remained unmarried that they had more years of premarital life available in which to build up the number of prostitute partners. Why did they not correspondingly accumulate a relatively large number of nonprostitute partners (companions)? First, nonhomosexually inclined individuals built up such a massive “lead” in the number of coital companions that even with their longer lives as single men the homosexual offenders vs. children could not surpass them. Second, men who subscribe to the old “good girl vs. bad girl” moral dichotomy (as do the incest offenders) or men who find it difficult to establish sexual relationships with ordinary females (as do the exhibitionists, heterosexual offenders vs. children, and homosexual offenders) tend to depend in premarital life more on prostitutes than upon companions for sexual outlet. The predominantly homosexual male is, moreover, not infrequently apt to go to a prostitute in the hope that this will help “cure” his homosexuality, or to prove to himself or others that he is heterosexually functional, or out of simple curiosity.

While more given to heterosexual activity than the other homosexual offenders, the homosexual offenders vs. children derived relatively small proportions of their total orgasms from premarital coitus with companions. They always are found near the bottom of the rank-orders with figures ranging from 5 to 14 per cent. The proportion of total outlet drawn from premarital coitus with prostitutes is also small, never exceeding 10 per cent.

As one might expect, one of the major factors that inhibited premarital coitus was a lack of interest in heterosexuality: the homosexual offenders rank first, second, and third in a rank-order of the percentages of those who gave this as their principal reason. Forty-nine per cent (third in rank-order) of the homosexual offenders vs. children reported disinterest. It at first appears odd that they also rank high in reporting moral considerations (fourth, with 30 per cent), fear of pregnancy (second, with 17 per cent), and fear of public opinion (fourth, with 12 per cent) as being important inhibiting factors. This, on further consideration, is not so strange: a person trained to look upon premarital coitus as sinful and ruinous to one’s reputation is apt to have a restrained premarital coital history, and this attitude and restraint combined might predispose him toward homosexuality. As we have said before, society through its efforts to discourage premarital heterosexual activity automatically fosters homosexuality.

*172\161\2*

About one fifth of the incest offenders vs. children had had sexual contact with animals; they are in fifth place in the rank-order of incidence. In age-specific incidence, the percentage with animal contact within a given age-period, these offenders begin with a moderate 10 per cent, but in the next two age-periods, 16-20 and 21-25, they rank second with 10 and 6 per cent respectively. In the next age-period, 26-30, none of these men had animal contacts. While having a larger proportion rural (40 per cent) than most groups they are much less rural than the other incest offenders who unexpectedly display lower incidences of animal contact. A moderate number reported masturbation fantasy (6 per cent) or dream content (4 per cent) involving sexual activity with animals.

In keeping with the fact that these offenders are less rural than the other incest offenders, their proportion of total sexual outlet derived from animal contact is always distinctly smaller.

*130\161\2*

The heterosexual aggressors vs. minors are adult males convicted of sexual contact, accompanied by force or threat, with females aged twelve to fifteen who were not their daughters. The majority of the females had reached puberty, and a substantial number of them had developed the physical attributes that are considered sexually attractive in our society. The aggressors vs. minors are like the offenders vs. minors except that they resorted to physical force or intimidation in order to achieve the sexual contact.

In some ways the twelve- to fifteen-year-old girl is peculiarly liable to force or threat. She is old enough to be physically attractive and yet not old enough to have learned to avoid or escape potentially dangerous situations. Whereas an older woman has learned to regard all men with some suspicion and to recognize quickly when a situation is developing sexual overtones, the twelve- to fifteen-year-old is usually naive. In her conscious or unconscious mimicry of the behaviorisms of adult females, the young girl often is more sexually provocative than she realizes. As we mentioned previously in the section on offenders vs. minors, the twelve- to fifteen-year-old girl frequently wishes to give the impression that she is older and more sophisticated than she actually is, and this can easily lead to a situation wherein the older male, in a mixture of erotic arousal and anger, does not permit the girl to “back out” at the eleventh hour. A part of masculine folklore is the concept that a female who promises but does not fulfill her promise deserves to be forced; a curiously righteous note prevails to the effect that a “teaser” should be “taught a lesson” as punishment.

On the other hand, the wholly ingenuous girl may cause herself difficulties by continuing childish behavior inappropriate to her physical development. The girl who at ten engaged in happy rough-and-tumble with the fifteen-year-old boy next door may be surprised when at thirteen she finds her eighteen-year-old neighbor is turning the wrestling match into a sexual struggle. Teasing the old trash collector in the alley into giving her a mock spanking at age ten may, if repeated in the early teens, elicit an unwanted and unexpected sexual response. Their naivete makes such artless girls all the more traumatized by any show of sexual force; they are the ones who rush home in hysterics when some male unexpectedly attempts to fondle their breasts or genitalia. An older female, generally anticipating sexual overtures from males, would be more insulted than frightened, and would extricate herself from the predicament with a slap and outraged remarks.

The male who realizes too late that what he interpreted as encouragement was nothing of the sort is in real danger if he attempts, by physical force, to detain a frightened girl in order to calm her and make his apologies. Assault with intent to rape is a charge that requires very little in the way of physical contact, and judges and juries are apt to be cynical toward the man who disclaims any intention of rape. Men, knowing themselves, are prone to assume the worst about another man charged with a sex offense.

*88\161\2*

The heterosexual offenders vs. minors were seldom the only children in the family—only 7 per cent had neither brothers nor sisters; the equivalent percentage for the control group is 10 per cent. Like the majority of the control and sex-offender groups, the offenders vs. minors were predominantly “middle children,” that is, neither the youngest nor oldest.

They are characterized by an excellent adjustment to their fathers from fourteen to seventeen, slightly better than the control group and exceeded by only two other groups. The same relatively good adjustment typifies their relations with their mothers, where once again they are superior to the control group. When asked with which parent they got along better, just over half (only one other group was higher) replied they got along equally well with both parents. The same impartiality is found also in the prison and control groups and among other sex offenders who were involved with persons age twelve or older and where no force was used.

In brief, the offender vs. minors appears to have had an almost ideal adjustment to his parents. It is noteworthy that a good relationship with parents is correlated with lack of force in the sex offense and with an object of twelve or older.

Despite the happy picture given above, over half of the offenders vs. minors came from broken homes. This is no surprise since the same is true of nearly all sex offenders and the prison group, though of only about 30 per cent of the control group. The great bulk of the breakups occurred before the boy was nine years old—which means the good parental relationship described above usually involved a stepparent.

About 64 per cent of the offenders vs. minors reported that between ages fourteen to seventeen they felt that their parents (genetic or surrogate) got along very well with one another; only one group reported a higher percentage. As in the case of the subject-parent relationship, the interparental relationship is best among sex offenders whose objects were twelve or older and who did not use force. It is interesting that parents of the heterosexual offenders vs. minors got along even slightly better than those of the average control-group individuals.

We are left, then, with a rather peculiar picture: breakup of the original family in half of the cases, usually through separation or divorce, followed by excellent parent-child and parent-parent adjustment.

It is also interesting that the offenders vs. minors tend to have spent fewer years in a home in which both a husband and wife were present than most of the other sex offenders and far fewer than the control group, although the same as the prison group. Almost 10 per cent had spent ten or more years in a household in which there was no husband; compared to other groups this is a high percentage.

Despite their ability to adjust well to their parents, the offenders vs. minors seem to have been somewhat inept at getting along with their contemporaries at ages ten to eleven. Over one third of them reported having had no girl companions during that age-period, and only about one fifth reported having had many. Nor did they seem to compensate for this by having more companions of their own sex; in this respect they were average. We shall subsequently see that this below-average situation regarding girl companions before puberty is later reversed, and that the offenders vs. minors were quite successful in establishing adult female relationships.

Their relative lack of friends, especially female friends, at ten to eleven is corroborated by the fact that they had remarkably little prepubertal sex play (47 per cent had none) either heterosexual or homosexual. The absence of sexual activity is rendered all the more striking by the fact that the offenders vs. minors tended to reach puberty at a later age than most other groups and had, in consequence, more eligible years in which to have had sex play. There was nothing unusual about the nature of what play there was or of the techniques employed. Of the small number who had prepubertal coitus a very large proportion, about three quarters, continued this activity without interruption into postpubertal life.

The offenders vs. minors are also noteworthy in that they experienced more prepubescent sexual contact with adult females than any other group. Furthermore, these contacts led to coitus in 5 per cent of die cases—a coital percentage exceeded only by one other group. Moreover, they are unique in being the only group in which the percentage that had experience with adult females (including solicitation as well as physical contact) exceeds the percentage that had experience with adult males. Ordinarily male children are approached by adult males far more often than they are approached by adult females. Excluding approaches not resulting in physical contact, the offenders vs. minors are one of the two groups who had more heterosexual than homosexual prepubertal physical contact with adults.

The high incidence of sexual relations with adult females may have predisposed this one seventh of the future offenders vs. minors to subsequent heterosexual activity with partners by far their juniors, but this hypothesis was not substantiated by the data on offenders vs. children. An alternative hypothesis—that the offenders vs. minors were, even in prepubescence, quite oriented toward heterosexual activity—is equally untenable in view of their relative lack of activity with female children their own age.

The heterosexual offenders vs. minors had, during childhood, better than average health, ranking fifth in this respect. For some unknown reason, the first five ranks are occupied by heterosexual sex offenders whose objects were aged twelve or more.

One curious feature of the heterosexual offenders vs. minors is that 22 per cent of them did not reach puberty until they were fifteen or older. This percentage, twice that of the prison group and nearly two and one-half times that of the control group, is exceeded by only two other groups. Their delayed adolescence may in part account for the high incidence of prepubescent contact with adult females (an adult female being defined as age sixteen or over and five or more years older than the prepubescent subject), since a prepubescent boy of fifteen may be following the sexual patterns of his postpubescent friends, and hence be more likely than the average prepubescent boy to be active with older females. Conversely, he could not associate with prepubescent girls, most of whom would be twelve or under, without lowering himself in the eyes of his male companions. Furthermore, parents and teachers discourage fifteen-year-old boys from associating with much younger girls. Technically his late adolescence gives the heterosexual offender vs. minors more years in which to have sex play with other prepubescents, but in actuality society tends to raise additional constraints on such play once he passes die average age of puberty.

A somewhat above-average number of heterosexual offenders vs. minors—nearly half—masturbated before puberty. This proportion far exceeds that of the control group and is near that of the prison group. Unlike the offenders vs. children, who began early, the offenders vs, minors began late: only 36 per cent of those with prepubertal masturbation started before age ten. This is the lowest percentage manifested by any group, and is in keeping with the delayed puberty typical of this group.

*46\161\2*

Smooth skin is another interesting factor to consider with skin and sex appeal. Traditionally, men and women have appreciated the difference between their skin textures. Women’s skin is smoother and much less hairy than men’s. Vive la difference! Running hands over exposed skin is an early signal of liking. Feeling the smooth skin or the hairy skin is a socially acceptable step in the direction of seduction. Smooth skin feels softest to the touch. Men love women’s smooth silky skin. Many women enjoy stroking a man’s hand, beard or face and appreciating the mix of hairs and smooth skin, strength and softness.

A current fad is the shaved head on men. What does it say at a subconscious level? It is blatantly sexual, phallic, confident and aggressive. There seem to be three groups of men engaging in this historically unusual behaviour only made possible by the advent of the electric shaver:

• Those who are losing their hair and see total baldness as an easier road. These men are aged from the late 20s through to 50s. It takes confidence to handle the attention and remarks directed towards their newly naked head.

• Young, aggressive sportsmen who are not necessarily losing their hair but are members of a team wishing to instil fear in the opposition. This tactic may work well since the shaved head is an unashamedly confident ‘in your face’ gesture.

• Young men who want to look confident, be free of society’s traditional values, who desire to conform to a rebellious society and so opt for the easy care and inexpensive, or macho, look. The result is the shortest haircut imaginable with a soft fuzzy feel to it as it grows out. The message is aggression and raw energy.

Is the shaved head sexy? To some women yes, to others, no. It is certainly touchable and these men must have lots of appreciative hands run over their head. Touching a head, as we have seen, is one sign of intimacy. The positive aspect of having a shaved head is that it takes courage. The negative? It takes a hat or beanie in winter to keep warm.

*44\74\8*

Purple and violet are powerful colours which people seem to either love or hate. It would be difficult even for the most ardent fans to live in a house full of purple and violet. To many they are spiritually uplifting colours, while to others they are depressing. Deep purple should be used sparingly by anyone prone to depression since it can inhibit the emotions in susceptible people.

Those who have chosen colours from the purple and violet spectrum, including mauve, lavender and lilac, have an imaginative bedroom where dreams and fantasy reign. You are a creative person who likes to be considered different and individual. You are also poised, refined and dignified with a set of strong values with which you are comfortable, even though they may be unconventional. Perhaps you are inclined to live in a fantasy world to hide the uglier side of the real world. Those with a penchant for purple and for the lighter tints of the purple family are often sensitive and intuitive. This can sometimes lead to moodiness if you spend too much time in your bedroom alone. You need to be treated with love and dignity in your intimate life as you continually yearn for emotional security.

So if you are partial to purple, lilac, mauve or pale violet are certainly better choices than bright purple or dark violet for a bedroom. They are softer and more romantic. Purple itself needs another colour with it, such as white or cream, or a soft green to

keep it emotionally balanced. It is better for you to use in small amounts as an accent rather than decorating an entire bedroom with purple, unless you absolutely adore it and don’t share your bedroom with anyone else.

*61\74\8*

How does this type of decorating reflect the personality of the Town and Country man and woman? Natural finishes for me, they say. No polyester or plastic – let me be in touch with nature. Let me reflect on the lives of the early pioneers and their simple, functional and recycled furnishings. I can adapt all that to my city lifestyle. I can do a little creating of my own by, for example, rubbing back a table, or sifting through the discarded and pre-loved furniture in the many wonderful antique or old wares shops.

The out-and-out Town and Country person loves touching the textures. They run their hands over old furniture or fabrics and love the tactile sensation. And they wear textures themselves with style. No plain smooth fabrics – they are into comfort and easy style with textured cotton, linen, wool, silk.

When recognizing a Town and Country person away from their home environment, notice the height (often taller than average), the build (angular rather than curved) and the angles in the face. These tell you that comfort in clothing and shoes is very important to them. The overall impression is friendly and approachable. They laugh a lot. Sarah, the Duchess of York, Robert Redford and Clint Eastwood are good examples of Town and Country types.

With this understanding of the pure Town and Country man and woman, you can begin to identify the personality that flows so easily with their decorating style. It is friendly, welcoming, unpretentious, take me as you find me, and enjoy the bounty of nature. Here is a person who wants to feel comfortable and shows it.

In bed? Lots of pillows please because that’s generous and if they are feathered pillows, they are so comfortable. What about sex? Yes please. That is so natural, but it must be sensual and involve touching and more touching and appreciating the lovely smell of the fresh sheets, and the yummy natural smell of you.

Key words: cosy, casual, homely, comfortable, textured and natural country style.

*81\74\8*

There are three basic types of Fantasy style:

1. The ethereal fairytale style of the past has lots of white and light pastel colours, in particular pale mauve, pink and blue.

Fabrics are sheer and voluminous and draped everywhere. Decorative elements include fairies, cherubs, dragons, stars, moons and clouds, all in excess. This bedroom becomes a world within a world, indicative of either the immature adult seeking to find the little girl in herself, or a highly imaginative person trying to escape from the ugliness of the real world.

2. The futuristic style of the idealistic space traveller is a more stylised decorating style, with elements relating to outer space such as robots and space ships or futuristic planes. It is the world of Star Wars. All elements to this design have streamlined, clean and clinical lines with much silver or chrome, grey and white used. Sometimes touches of red, black or yellow are also evident. Again, this is a person, usually male, trying to escape from their present reality, this time into a world of the future.

3. The impossible ideal style is the world of Hollywood movie stars, of famous entertainers and of wealth and fame. The person who has this style of bedroom imagines that the world of everyone else is much better than his or her own and that money and fame solve all problems. Of course they only see the romantic side of this other style of living and this is what they try to create in their intimate life. The interest in the lives of celebrities, whether living or dead, by the fantasy seeker is totally obsessive and unrealistic, and that is how they live their lives. To most of us, this is immature and unimaginable behaviour – we don’t understand or want to understand for that matter. It may be interpreted by many as too cult-like.

*101\74\8*

Flair, style, unusual colour combinations and creative fabric are the elements which set the Creatives apart from the rest. These are the non-conformists among us. They tend to mix a little of everything to create their own individual style. Fabrics with patterns, fabrics with fringes and tassels, scarves and sarongs are basic decorating items to a Creative. Often they will decorate their homes with their own quirky and unusual art pieces, and they may even screen print their own fabrics to use in their homes and clothing. Admire their artwork, and ask them to explain it to you. They will love it.

Unusual restaurants are the norm for them, nothing classic and ordinary. Cult restaurants with eclectic colourful decor may well appeal. Unusual food combinations presented in a casual, relaxed style will seduce them. This doesn’t mean they don’t like traditional family cooking, they just like to experience different cuisine when they go out. If entertaining at home they may decorate the table with a mixture of odd cutlery, crockery and serviettes with many different shapes and colours. Table centrepieces may be created by combining unrelated items from their stock of odd collectibles. Unusual candles will nearly always be a feature. The food they serve may be non-traditional, or it may be traditional style with combinations you would not normally think to put together.

With seduction, think unique, different, unusual, new. Combine different elements. Be spontaneous. The more variety the better. Surprise them with your ingenuity.

Creatives don’t like habitual rituals. In the bedroom, ensure the bed looks comfortable and inviting. Ruffle the cover a little, throw a piece of fabric or a scarf over the lamps to mute the light and send colour throughout the room. Or use coloured light globes to throw a sensual glow throughout the room. Be aware of the different and unusual atmosphere you are creating.

The female Creative is the free spirit who often shocks the traditional Classics and Practicals. Be innovative when seducing her. Think of feathers and other titillating tools. Change your seduction style each time and vary the body positions. Surprise her, don’t bore her.

The Creative man loves spontaneity. Send him intriguing notes, seduce him with the unusual. Variety is the spice of life for him. As long as you do it with a sense of flair, anything goes. Don’t be shy with him. Drape yourself in seductive fabric. Let his imagination whirl.

Good news: unique, quirky, has colourful flair.

*121\74\8*