That Dorian Gray debases himself has nothing to do with his being "unmanly" and everything to do with moral decay and the separation of vice from consequence. But, in any case, Mr. Velshi's prissy assessment that "This sort of willful and unmanly metrosexualism is unbecoming; doubtless, Don Juan and Casanova were quite happy being the little spoon, too" strains his credibility -- although it is quite amusing as an example of how such old-fashioned thinking lives on; Mr. Velshi should seek the opinion of young women besot with men like Johnny Depp or, before him, David Bowie to understand if androgyny is truly "unbecoming." To men like Mr. Velshi perhaps it is, but if one is seeking to attract women, his opinion hardly matters.

And bravo to the Roman propagandists, whose characterization of Cleopatra as a whore lives on, unexamined, more than 2000 years after they dreamed it up. The story of her hiding in a carpet is, for one thing, apocryphal, and for another, is meant to illustrated her shrewdness, a trait that Cleopatra clearly possessed and which Mr. Velshi admires in Pompadour. "An honest inspection of the men who had their way with" Cleopatra (as if she some sort of naive and used milk maid, a Tess of the D'Urbervilles who happens to be Queen of Egypt!) , historically speaking, gives us a list of only two men: Julius Caesar and Marc Antony. Her affairs with them, I believe, had everything to do with the desire for Empire and the perception of their divine rights on the part of all parties. Blaming Cleopatra for Julius Caesar and Antony's downfall is simplistic and lacking original thought on the subject. There is a good deal of intersection of power and eros in the story of Cleopatra that is missed here.

I am not quite sure whether its a lack of support from content of essay or the distraction of Mr. Velshi's unconvincing rhetoric toward the end of the essay that makes Mr. Velshi's conclusion about "the cruelty of eros" making "it sublime" seem a bit overblown. Fortunately, that doesn't matter if one is a teenager or young adult looking in the English Review for advice about how to score. Mr. Velshi will get thanks from young people everywhere, I'm sure.

From that angle, this is a tutorial on how to keep what therapists call "the narcissistic supply" going, and in that much, shrewdly stated. NPD is a way of reducing anxiety, and the lessons here are that flattery has to be exactly targeted, and can be more effective if it both raises anxiety issues before soothing them. Politicians do this all the time... first pump up the fear, then reassure everyone that you're the guy for the job and the voters are smart to recognize "this vital issue."

As the author states, this is dangerous knowlege but consider it an exercise in raising consumer awareness.

I would have thought that preying on someone's insecurities, such that he or she became emotionally dependent, arguably addicted to the presence of another person would be at best unethical. Surely, that is something to be ashamed of.

Mr. Velshi would be well served to first learn the meaning of Eros before he started dispensing erratic musings on the topic. The cruelty of eros is what makes it sublime? (!)

Mr. Velshi confuses seduction with outright manipulation and thus his whole article is one big conceit. Covert manipulation in the pursuit of power is not seduction by any means and certainly does not need exaltation, that Mr. Velshi praises it as an insightful skill to have in order to engage in 'short-term relationships' is nothing short of vulgar.

Crassness, like manipulation, has nothing to do with the spirit of Eros. One can seduce another for a short relationship --they are called affairs, Mr. Velshi-- and they can be carried out in utterly honest and passionate abandone.

Seduction basks is its effrontery, in weaving a web of temptation for the subject of one's desire, not in raping them of their powers of discernment.

There is nothing more erotic than skillfully leading the subject's of one's obssessions to the rivers of one's own desire, so that they feel that giving in is the only natural thing to do. That is seduction, Mr. Velshi.

One would hope you would not recommend covert manipulation to the young in order to succeed in the realm of seduction. Your recipe reads more like the sophistries of a stealth rapist than the devoted skills of a would-be lover.

 All of Velshi's information completely lacks historical perspective and much of it lacks actual historical knowledge. It seems he did a brief Google search on a summary of the life of M. de Pompadour and expanded it into an essay with his own skewed perspective.

Also, despite being the quintessential royal mistress, when the topic is "seduction", Pompadour seems an unlikely candidate, given the sexuality of the act of seducing someone. Madame de Pompadour famously suffered from "rigidity" - likely she had a disorder that caused discomfort and foul odor during the intercourse. She stopped having sex with Louis XV altogether in 1750 and yet still remained his friend and companion until her death 14 years later. Who the hell wants to take bedroom advice from a woman who had a deplorable sex life that ended when she was 29?

And then there's the completely incoherent comparison of two historical characters to a fictional character with mild homophobic undertones...

Actually the whole article (starting with the title) came off as the moanings of a man who didn't get much in the way of female attention in college and now tries to use history as a means of exposing everything he's already known about the "cruelty" of womankind.

Get over yourself, V.