This often happens with serious players. It might be a starfucking thing (maybe he grew up on her work) rather than an out of control thing. JFK slept with Marlene Dietrich when she was in her sixties, because she was Marlene Dietrich.
I know a guy who is younger than I am who recently slept with Jeanne Moreau, who is in her seventies, because she's Jeanne fucking Moreau.
What I can't decide is whether his method is ultra-skeezy or actually kind of sensitive and honest.
I've known guys like that -- they'll screw anyone in a sort of warm, friendly, sensitive-new-age-guy kind of way. They kinda suck to have around because it's hard to figure out what's going on with them, so they tend to leave a trail of women going "Whaaa... I thought we had a deep personal connection here?" A guy like that went through my college hippie co-op like a prairie fire, leaving half the women in the house pissed off at each other (my claim to fame is that I'm one of the few straight women in the house that didn't sleep with him -- not for any moral reasons, just contrary.)
But, you know, nothing wrong with it as long as there's full disclosure.
Re 1: Interesting use of "slept with" as a euphemism for "fucked", and of "fucking" just for emphasis, all in the course of describing an instance of fucking just for emphasis.
He's a sensitive boy, and I'm sure he was very attentive and trying to learn something from her, so it seems wrong to call it fucking. And she is Jeanne fucking Moreau.
Not a question about LB per se, but how come stories like hers never quite end with, "I never knew what hit me"? The two bona fide man-eaters I dated in college (or got man-eaten by or whatever, and that shot's too easy for anyone to take) were like licensed professionals: One of them dated a friend of mine (and I didn't listen) and the other dated my friend (who didn't listen either), and I think the real skill to their technique is in friend selection. It's the guy who comes over when you need a fourth player in something. That guy's toast.
Not for me it isn't. But, Kriston, I'm actually confused by your story. Are you saying that the guy brought in to be the fourth player in something is the cold hearted assassin, or "toast?" "Toast" usually means that person has been defeated at something. I am confused.
We've been over this before. There is an inherent ageism in the assumption that a 28 year old guy would have to be out of control to want sex with a 70 year old woman.
Maybe she is freaking hot.
Ultra skeezy versus sensitive and honest is a false dichotomy.
He could be honest and into hot women. As long as he is honest I don't see the problem. Who are you or me to dictate what is hot?
Colin Farrell hangs out at the Clarence hotel in Dublin a lot (that's the one owned by U2), and a friend of mine used to skulk about there trying to run into him. I accompanied her once, and actually made eye contact with him. But there were about fifteen other women between us, so it was not my night. Which is probably a good thing. I would have had to pass him over to my friend that day anyway. Hers was the greater need.
I couldn't quite follow Kriston either -- what I'm getting is that his man-eaters would hop from friend to friend, dating a guy, and then a buddy of his, and then a buddy of the next guy's. But I still don't quite follow what he was saying with the "never knew what hit me" bit.
Well, don't we all generally agree that beyond a certain age people just ain't so hot anymore? She is still attractive, at least in the picture in the article, but is it really so strange to wonder why a guy who has recently slept with "Angelina Jolie, Britney Spears, Demi Moore and Naomi Campbell" would want to sleep with someone 42 years older than him?
Ultra skeezy versus sensitive and honest is a false dichotomy
I'm just talking about his "I know you feel unattractive" approach.
I think you are all missing the forrest for the trees with Kriston's comment. His point, as I read, is, "It's not yet noon, and I'm already drunk. Life is good."
LB, I think Kriston is saying that those who tell these stories are generall never the ones who wound up sleeping with the maneater/skeez.
Kriston, as a data point, I have been maneaten, but was generally completely aware of what's going on. Of course, in my younger days, I was a bit of a skeeze myself.
hink Kriston is saying that those who tell these stories are generall never the ones who wound up sleeping with the maneater/skeez.
That's not how I read it. Initially, I thought it was a comment on the difference between the effects of female players and male players on their respective targets, but given LB's story, that doesn't make much sense either.
Well, if all of you were confused, all of you can't read.
I was wondering how players are able to move through a closed social circle, sleep with so many people, and never achieve non grata status. The two girls that preyed on my social circle in college were able to do so unimpeded because they didn't move from me to my best friend, but from me to a not-so-close friend. Like in LB's co-op, I don't remember anyone being angry about it, but there was definitely a sense that we all got conned, and I think the true player has the skill to maneuver toward the latter state and avoid the former.
Ahhh. Very true in my case -- both in that that is the pattern of how the player moved through the house, and in that the fact that I liked the other women involved (and am deeply conflict-avoidant) is probably a but-for cause of my not having screwed him.
Well, don't we all generally agree that beyond a certain age people just ain't so hot anymore?
I for one don't agree with that, and I'd like you to check back with me in about 40 years or so. Your feelings may change, too.
is it really so strange to wonder why a guy who has recently slept with "Angelina Jolie, Britney Spears, Demi Moore and Naomi Campbell" would want to sleep with someone 42 years older than him?
It is not strange. I'm not digging on you. In some ways, though, his previously broad interest may be a reason why his current broad interest is not unexpected.
I for one don't agree with that, and I'd like you to check back with me in about 40 years or so. Your feelings may change, too.
Tripp, I'm not expressing disapproval, just saying that at a certain point, we're moving into fetish territory. Basically, I have two claims that I thought were uncontroversial:
1. Elderly people are less sexy than young people.
2. People who can sleep with whomever they want, tend to sleep with sexier people.
Okay. The problem with blanket statements, though, is that there are exceptions.
If you softened the first point to the following I could easily agree with it:
1. Many elderly people are less sexy than young people.
I could even go so far as to accept:
1. Most elderly people are less sexy than young people.
And I agree with your second point, too.
Aside from that, though, you bring up an interesting phenomenon. In some people's mind it is less skeezy to go after ALL attractive women instead of simply going after young attractive women.
Like you, I wonder why that is?
Since you are one who has that feeling, I'll ask you.
Why is it less skeezy to go after ALL attractive women instead of simply going after young attractive women.
You did nothing wrong Tripp, that was a joke. You didn't actually call women "broads," you just said "broad interest" and I tried to make a funny. You're right, though, that I should have said "'em."
Of course you can't be sure that the guy who's indiscrimate isn't collecting trophies, or that the guy who only goes for the tender young chickens (as they're labelled at my supermarket) isn't a slave to his urges.
Well, don't we all generally agree that beyond a certain age people just ain't so hot anymore? She is still attractive
So what's the difference between hot and attractive here? I think of the two as closely related, but I think of hotness as something a person sort of gives off and attractiveness as something a person is. Not very exact, I know. So a person of any age can be hot and/or attractive.
Tripp, I want to kindly suggest that you are being a bit absurd here. Do you not think it unusual to discover that a 30ish hot shot movie star should make the moves on a woman approaching octogenarian status? We are suggesting natural phenomena here, not normative ones. It is unusual, and we think, in a pleasant way. That is all that is being said.
It is less unusual the other way around. Perhaps because it is so unusual, it suggests a quirkiness to Mr. Farrell that was otherwise hidden. He seems sort of brainless, and therefore, without interesting quirks of personality. But this story seems to say otherwise. So it makes us like him a little more. Is that not a positive thing?
I was thinking it also might be relevant to mention that Ireland is a much less ageist society than the U.S. You socialize with the whole town. Pub life includes people of all ages, and the young are often sitting around listening to stories of older people--that's what you do at a pub.
I think "skeezy" implies a certain fundamental dishonesty or dirtiness (cleanliness) about the process; "slutty" means likes sex and easy to get into bed. So, while a slutty person is fun, a skeezy person is fun for the moment.
Perhaps we think of "skeez" applying to both males and females, while "slut" being exclusively female for the reason that behavior considered slutty in females (but not skeezy) is considered of no consequence when performed by males. Behavior that can be described as skeezy is bad form for both sexes.
So all of my options are wrong, except johnnycakes: Tom Berringer.
Re 67: Since men generally suffer less disdain than women under assumptions of equal promiscuity, the male analogue to "slut" should be overweighted, contempt-wise, to compensate. Skeez has that soupçon of veneral disease, and to that end suffices.
No, I have male friends I describe as "sluts". I've heard others describe men as "male-sluts," so maybe there's something there. But generally, I think degenderfication continues apace.
SB, I see your argument, but by accepting this as the legitimate analogy aren't you really buying into the whole patriarchal hegemony (joke. ok, bad joke, but I can't bring myself to delete it.) that attributes neutral (or positive) qualities to the same behaviors in men? I think skank has precisely that soupson (sorry, can't do that cool c thingy) of vd that you mention, thereby rebalancing the scales.
I see your point, cw. Like the rogue I-beam that falls from the sky and lands on rivets awaiting, I seem to have inadvertently reinforced the power structure.
I think I've linked this before, but the actual LBJ stories are almost as crazy as an Unfogged comments thread:
In his recent biography of Lyndon Johnson, Flawed Giant, Robert Dallek writes, "During a private conversation with some reporters who pressed him to explain why we were in Vietnam, Johnson lost his patience. According to Arthur Goldberg, LBJ unzipped his fly, drew out his substantial organ and declared, ‘This is why!'"
You asked about being noticed by the regulars. I think you are learning, you gotta throw them some red meat now and then. Wolfson's easy, he craves a grammar fix. The others have similar (but different) cravings.
Sometimes I wish you used a pseudonym here. That way, when you snapped and started killing people in strange medieval ways, you could let us know. Ah, well, no use crying over spilt milk.
Tripp: tweren't me. I'm ballsy enough to consider myself a (newish) regular. But I certainly remember the first few testings of the water, and what the experience felt like.
and SB, this:
It puts the teleological suspension of the ethical in the basket.
Just about caused me to choke on my fish sandwich. Brilliant.
Note to mustache-twirling villains everywhere: Have a backup plan. Because your devious plot to make Chopper almost choke on a fish sandwich might peak too early.
This often happens with serious players. It might be a starfucking thing (maybe he grew up on her work) rather than an out of control thing. JFK slept with Marlene Dietrich when she was in her sixties, because she was Marlene Dietrich.
I know a guy who is younger than I am who recently slept with Jeanne Moreau, who is in her seventies, because she's Jeanne fucking Moreau.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 9:16 AM
as would I. But I prefer the out-of-control interpretation. He is a man of many appetites.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 9:23 AM
"there are some parts of a woman's body which never age"
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 9:23 AM
What I can't decide is whether his method is ultra-skeezy or actually kind of sensitive and honest.
I've known guys like that -- they'll screw anyone in a sort of warm, friendly, sensitive-new-age-guy kind of way. They kinda suck to have around because it's hard to figure out what's going on with them, so they tend to leave a trail of women going "Whaaa... I thought we had a deep personal connection here?" A guy like that went through my college hippie co-op like a prairie fire, leaving half the women in the house pissed off at each other (my claim to fame is that I'm one of the few straight women in the house that didn't sleep with him -- not for any moral reasons, just contrary.)
But, you know, nothing wrong with it as long as there's full disclosure.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 9:28 AM
Re 1: Interesting use of "slept with" as a euphemism for "fucked", and of "fucking" just for emphasis, all in the course of describing an instance of fucking just for emphasis.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 9:45 AM
He's a sensitive boy, and I'm sure he was very attentive and trying to learn something from her, so it seems wrong to call it fucking. And she is Jeanne fucking Moreau.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 9:49 AM
Not a question about LB per se, but how come stories like hers never quite end with, "I never knew what hit me"? The two bona fide man-eaters I dated in college (or got man-eaten by or whatever, and that shot's too easy for anyone to take) were like licensed professionals: One of them dated a friend of mine (and I didn't listen) and the other dated my friend (who didn't listen either), and I think the real skill to their technique is in friend selection. It's the guy who comes over when you need a fourth player in something. That guy's toast.
Heart cold as assassins, as the man said.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 9:54 AM
"and that shot's too easy for anyone to take"
Not for me it isn't. But, Kriston, I'm actually confused by your story. Are you saying that the guy brought in to be the fourth player in something is the cold hearted assassin, or "toast?" "Toast" usually means that person has been defeated at something. I am confused.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:01 AM
I think he means that that guy is the next agendum for the cold-hearted assassin.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:04 AM
I had not taken into account same-sex assasination.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:06 AM
How Wolfson read it is how I read it, but I'm not sure I get the skill in friend selection part.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:07 AM
We've been over this before. There is an inherent ageism in the assumption that a 28 year old guy would have to be out of control to want sex with a 70 year old woman.
Maybe she is freaking hot.
Ultra skeezy versus sensitive and honest is a false dichotomy.
He could be honest and into hot women. As long as he is honest I don't see the problem. Who are you or me to dictate what is hot?
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:10 AM
Colin Farrell hangs out at the Clarence hotel in Dublin a lot (that's the one owned by U2), and a friend of mine used to skulk about there trying to run into him. I accompanied her once, and actually made eye contact with him. But there were about fifteen other women between us, so it was not my night. Which is probably a good thing. I would have had to pass him over to my friend that day anyway. Hers was the greater need.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:13 AM
I couldn't quite follow Kriston either -- what I'm getting is that his man-eaters would hop from friend to friend, dating a guy, and then a buddy of his, and then a buddy of the next guy's. But I still don't quite follow what he was saying with the "never knew what hit me" bit.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:14 AM
FWIW it's worth, I would totally jump Ann Margret or Raquel Welch.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:15 AM
inherent ageism
Well, don't we all generally agree that beyond a certain age people just ain't so hot anymore? She is still attractive, at least in the picture in the article, but is it really so strange to wonder why a guy who has recently slept with "Angelina Jolie, Britney Spears, Demi Moore and Naomi Campbell" would want to sleep with someone 42 years older than him?
Ultra skeezy versus sensitive and honest is a false dichotomy
I'm just talking about his "I know you feel unattractive" approach.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:15 AM
Hey, everybody was confused by a different part of Kriston's comment!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:17 AM
I think you are all missing the forrest for the trees with Kriston's comment. His point, as I read, is, "It's not yet noon, and I'm already drunk. Life is good."
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:18 AM
LB, I think Kriston is saying that those who tell these stories are generall never the ones who wound up sleeping with the maneater/skeez.
Kriston, as a data point, I have been maneaten, but was generally completely aware of what's going on. Of course, in my younger days, I was a bit of a skeeze myself.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:18 AM
hink Kriston is saying that those who tell these stories are generall never the ones who wound up sleeping with the maneater/skeez.
That's not how I read it. Initially, I thought it was a comment on the difference between the effects of female players and male players on their respective targets, but given LB's story, that doesn't make much sense either.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:22 AM
Well, if all of you were confused, all of you can't read.
I was wondering how players are able to move through a closed social circle, sleep with so many people, and never achieve non grata status. The two girls that preyed on my social circle in college were able to do so unimpeded because they didn't move from me to my best friend, but from me to a not-so-close friend. Like in LB's co-op, I don't remember anyone being angry about it, but there was definitely a sense that we all got conned, and I think the true player has the skill to maneuver toward the latter state and avoid the former.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:27 AM
Well, if all of you were confused, all of you can't read.
The dreaded Kriston conditional!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:28 AM
Ahhh. Very true in my case -- both in that that is the pattern of how the player moved through the house, and in that the fact that I liked the other women involved (and am deeply conflict-avoidant) is probably a but-for cause of my not having screwed him.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:30 AM
Apo, sometimes your genius leaves me at a near loss for words.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:30 AM
ogged,
Well, don't we all generally agree that beyond a certain age people just ain't so hot anymore?
I for one don't agree with that, and I'd like you to check back with me in about 40 years or so. Your feelings may change, too.
is it really so strange to wonder why a guy who has recently slept with "Angelina Jolie, Britney Spears, Demi Moore and Naomi Campbell" would want to sleep with someone 42 years older than him?
It is not strange. I'm not digging on you. In some ways, though, his previously broad interest may be a reason why his current broad interest is not unexpected.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:31 AM
I for one don't agree with that, and I'd like you to check back with me in about 40 years or so. Your feelings may change, too.
Tripp, I'm not expressing disapproval, just saying that at a certain point, we're moving into fetish territory. Basically, I have two claims that I thought were uncontroversial:
1. Elderly people are less sexy than young people.
2. People who can sleep with whomever they want, tend to sleep with sexier people.
I'm *not* saying that older people can't be hot.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:36 AM
What, Tripp, now we're calling them broads? Not classy.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:43 AM
ogged,
Okay. The problem with blanket statements, though, is that there are exceptions.
If you softened the first point to the following I could easily agree with it:
1. Many elderly people are less sexy than young people.
I could even go so far as to accept:
1. Most elderly people are less sexy than young people.
And I agree with your second point, too.
Aside from that, though, you bring up an interesting phenomenon. In some people's mind it is less skeezy to go after ALL attractive women instead of simply going after young attractive women.
Like you, I wonder why that is?
Since you are one who has that feeling, I'll ask you.
Why is it less skeezy to go after ALL attractive women instead of simply going after young attractive women.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:47 AM
*shrug* Maybe it was the 42 year gap and he'd just seen the Hitchiker movie.
Okay, okay, i'll stop now.
Posted by Karyn | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:47 AM
Matt,
Oh crap. Sorry! But I don't think we should refer to a group of women as "them," either.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:49 AM
Why is it less skeezy to go after ALL attractive women instead of simply going after young attractive women.
The young attractive women keep getting younger.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:51 AM
If it's less skeezy, it's because he's a slave to his urges, rather than just collecting trophies. That's the quick and dirty answer anyway.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:51 AM
You did nothing wrong Tripp, that was a joke. You didn't actually call women "broads," you just said "broad interest" and I tried to make a funny. You're right, though, that I should have said "'em."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:53 AM
Of course you can't be sure that the guy who's indiscrimate isn't collecting trophies, or that the guy who only goes for the tender young chickens (as they're labelled at my supermarket) isn't a slave to his urges.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:54 AM
Then how should we refer to
themthose women over there?Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:55 AM
leaves me at a near loss for words.
I haven't noticed that phenomenon, SCMT.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:56 AM
Though if someone on this blog finally got some, it would (I hope) involve wear-loss for nerds.
Dammit, I should really stop this.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:59 AM
SB, I vote for dames.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 10:59 AM
You don't vote for dames. Dames are knighted.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:01 AM
Knights are knighted.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:02 AM
Dames are damed?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:03 AM
If that damed woman doesn't pay up by Tuesday...
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:04 AM
Dames, I believe, are made. An anagram, even.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:05 AM
Is apostropher gonna hafta choke a dame?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:05 AM
Some are born dames, some achieve dameness, and some—but not ogged—have dames thrust upon them.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:07 AM
Wolfson wins.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:09 AM
What does he get for winning?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:15 AM
A dame thrust upon him?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:16 AM
Ah, but what if that dame is Eileen Atkins?
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:23 AM
ogged,
... slave to his urges
Heh heh. You can take a beautiful thing and turn it into something tawdry. I like that.
And thanks to you all I now have the friggin' South Pacific "There is Nothing like a Dame" song running through my head!
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:26 AM
Actually, some books are like a dame.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:27 AM
Atkins is probably busy. How about Edna?
Posted by Tarrou | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:27 AM
Dame Edma was able, ere she saw elba.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:31 AM
OK, Wolfson, I'll bite. How is a book like a dame?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:33 AM
Able was ehs ere elba saw amde emad?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:34 AM
Geez, SB, between you and ac, people really have to watch themselves around here.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:36 AM
Sit on a potato pan, Otis.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:37 AM
T. Eliot, top bard, notes putrid tang emanating, is sad. I'd assign it a name: gnat dirt upset on drab pot toilet.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:38 AM
Go hang a salami, I'm a lasagna hog.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:40 AM
I bring to thee (not to thee alone, nay, but to all y'all) a palindrome of porn-king length.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:50 AM
Chopper, what do we do to make people watch themselves? I may be a lexical salad-shooter, but I don't see it as cause for intimidation.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:53 AM
Well, don't we all generally agree that beyond a certain age people just ain't so hot anymore? She is still attractive
So what's the difference between hot and attractive here? I think of the two as closely related, but I think of hotness as something a person sort of gives off and attractiveness as something a person is. Not very exact, I know. So a person of any age can be hot and/or attractive.
Posted by annie | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 11:57 AM
"there are some parts of a woman's body which never age"
My late-night internet surfing tells me otherwise.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 12:06 PM
SB: apparently, you both bite people.
It was a stretch of a joke, I know.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 12:08 PM
Tripp, I want to kindly suggest that you are being a bit absurd here. Do you not think it unusual to discover that a 30ish hot shot movie star should make the moves on a woman approaching octogenarian status? We are suggesting natural phenomena here, not normative ones. It is unusual, and we think, in a pleasant way. That is all that is being said.
It is less unusual the other way around. Perhaps because it is so unusual, it suggests a quirkiness to Mr. Farrell that was otherwise hidden. He seems sort of brainless, and therefore, without interesting quirks of personality. But this story seems to say otherwise. So it makes us like him a little more. Is that not a positive thing?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 12:18 PM
I was thinking it also might be relevant to mention that Ireland is a much less ageist society than the U.S. You socialize with the whole town. Pub life includes people of all ages, and the young are often sitting around listening to stories of older people--that's what you do at a pub.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 12:26 PM
Re - skeez:slut
I thought skeez had slightly nastier implications. More like skank than slut.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 12:43 PM
skeez: slut as
a) Colin Farrell: philanthropist
b) johnny cakes: Tom Berringer
c) executor: executrix
d) ho: Thai tranny ho
Discuss
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 12:48 PM
I think "skeezy" implies a certain fundamental dishonesty or dirtiness (cleanliness) about the process; "slutty" means likes sex and easy to get into bed. So, while a slutty person is fun, a skeezy person is fun for the moment.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 12:57 PM
Perhaps we think of "skeez" applying to both males and females, while "slut" being exclusively female for the reason that behavior considered slutty in females (but not skeezy) is considered of no consequence when performed by males. Behavior that can be described as skeezy is bad form for both sexes.
So all of my options are wrong, except johnnycakes: Tom Berringer.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:00 PM
Re 67: Since men generally suffer less disdain than women under assumptions of equal promiscuity, the male analogue to "slut" should be overweighted, contempt-wise, to compensate. Skeez has that soupçon of veneral disease, and to that end suffices.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:02 PM
No, I have male friends I describe as "sluts". I've heard others describe men as "male-sluts," so maybe there's something there. But generally, I think degenderfication continues apace.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:03 PM
The last time I tried to play the a:b::c:d game, I pretty much killed the thread, so I'll sit this one out for the good of the community.
Hindrocket is banned!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:10 PM
SB, I see your argument, but by accepting this as the legitimate analogy aren't you really buying into the whole patriarchal hegemony (joke. ok, bad joke, but I can't bring myself to delete it.) that attributes neutral (or positive) qualities to the same behaviors in men? I think skank has precisely that soupson (sorry, can't do that cool c thingy) of vd that you mention, thereby rebalancing the scales.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:13 PM
patriarchal hegemony
I thought the preferred term was "phallocracy."
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:18 PM
Dicktatorship.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:31 PM
The Johnson Administration.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:33 PM
to which there is a standing membership committee
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:36 PM
The actual LBJ seems to have been quite fond of introducing his favored cabinet member, nicknamed Jumbo, during meetings.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:40 PM
I see your point, cw. Like the rogue I-beam that falls from the sky and lands on rivets awaiting, I seem to have inadvertently reinforced the power structure.
(The cool c thingy is "ç", by the way.)
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:41 PM
Cockracy.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:42 PM
SB, how and where did we acquire you?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:43 PM
Ariscockracy.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:43 PM
Theocockracy, for that matter
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:44 PM
Cockracy.
Racy cock!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:46 PM
Watch out for kleptcockracy.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:50 PM
his favored cabinet member, nicknamed Jumbo
This is my Chief of Staff, boys.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:50 PM
Ramrodding the backsliders is his function
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:52 PM
I think I've linked this before, but the actual LBJ stories are almost as crazy as an Unfogged comments thread:
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:57 PM
I imagine Bush could do the same with regard to Iraq, with the opposite effect.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:58 PM
Must have been comforting to know he was leading with his head.
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 1:59 PM
"a simply stunningly gorgeous big film star aged 28 years old, came into my hotel room for sex without strings."
It just struck me that Mr. Farrell's failure was in leaving out the strings. Not very kinky.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 2:00 PM
ogged, when I arrived here in my stylish alien hover-torus, I spoke to the local denizens and said, "Take me to your cock jokes." And voilà.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 2:03 PM
That's what I thought.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 2:06 PM
Dicktatorship of the Lumpenproletariat
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 2:07 PM
et voilà.
/wolfson
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 2:09 PM
does 96 reference 95?
Just askin...
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 2:11 PM
96: You mean, et voici.
/meta-wolfson
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 2:14 PM
Wolfson wasn't funny the first time.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 2:17 PM
96 was to 93. And SB, I wasn't picking on you, but rather Wolfson(ununbium), who took a grammar shot at me earlier today.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 2:17 PM
Ah cross-posting, I see SB was clued in to begin with.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 2:18 PM
I know it was weak.. but i was thinking more along the line of: 95 + et voila, Wolfson...
but if ya gotta 'splain, it ain't funny.
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 2:20 PM
Wolfson...took a grammar shot...earlier today
A grammar shot? I'd guess Grand Marnier, possibly mixed with Old Grandad. But that doesn't sound like something to shoot.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 2:20 PM
More like something to run from.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05- 4-05 2:21 PM
Chopper,
You asked about being noticed by the regulars. I think you are learning, you gotta throw them some red meat now and then. Wolfson's easy, he craves a grammar fix. The others have similar (but different) cravings.
And we all know what I'm after, right?
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 7:07 AM
Something warm, moist and hollow?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 7:12 AM
Ben,
Sometimes I wish you used a pseudonym here. That way, when you snapped and started killing people in strange medieval ways, you could let us know. Ah, well, no use crying over spilt milk.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 7:19 AM
Wolfon: A nostril?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 7:24 AM
Something warm, moist and hollow?
Pumpkins!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 7:24 AM
Tim, how odd that you should mention that just now.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 7:33 AM
That's funny, but not odd. I'm not sure that conjoining the words "warm," "moist," and "hollow" left room for much besides "future serial killer."
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 7:40 AM
It puts the teleological suspension of the ethical in the basket.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 8:14 AM
Or it gets the hos.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 8:17 AM
Nostril trumps pumpkin for warmth.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 8:20 AM
Cinderella trumps nostril for moist,
Pumpkin trumps Cinderella for hollow.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 9:19 AM
I just assumed that the answer to Tripp's question was "a ninety-two-year-old hottie."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 9:21 AM
Aw, ogged, c'mon. You know I only have eyes for you.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 9:32 AM
Reconciliation between 116 and 117 reveals that ogged is a 92-year-old hottie!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 9:34 AM
Tripp: tweren't me. I'm ballsy enough to consider myself a (newish) regular. But I certainly remember the first few testings of the water, and what the experience felt like.
and SB, this:
It puts the teleological suspension of the ethical in the basket.
Just about caused me to choke on my fish sandwich. Brilliant.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 9:49 AM
Ben,
Sometimes I wish you used a pseudonym here.
But you do create the impression of a pseudonym.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 10:01 AM
Note to mustache-twirling villains everywhere: Have a backup plan. Because your devious plot to make Chopper almost choke on a fish sandwich might peak too early.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 10:36 AM
Tripp, when Fairy Godmother casts her spell, what does the nostril turn into?
Bibbity bobbity schnozz, yo.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 11:21 AM
Tripp, when Fairy Godmother casts her spell, what does the nostril turn into?
I hope it turns into my driveway!
Yeah, baby!
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 11:40 AM
A two-car garage.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 11:40 AM
I scooped apostropher!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 05- 5-05 11:41 AM