You know, out of loyalty to my co-bloggers, maybe I should just refuse (that's right, refuse!) to date anyone whose criteria exclude any of them. (I might have to make an exception for Alameida's ovariciousness.)
Dally for a while with Mlle. Relentless Cooking until you're the requisite weight, and then dump her for La Violent Tendencies. A woman who wants to punch everyone who's ever said something she finds annoying and a man who deems this "sense of humor" are clearly a match made in heaven. This is an opportunity not to be missed, Ogged, and love conquers all but you need to put a little effort into it. The time for action is now. All those Power Bars aren't going to eat themselves, you know.
So what is the online dating etiquette on specifiying desired body type? (I admit the weight limit seems weird -- it's very hard to tell what any given number is going to look like on an actual person.)
Would it be obnoxious if she'd said something like "I'm generally not attracted to guys who look frail (or whatever she actually meant by the weight limit) or who are too much taller than I am."?
I should just refuse (that's right, refuse!) to date anyone whose criteria exclude any of them.
This might be pretty hard -- I'd think most people's criteria include "Shows up at least occasionally," which would exclude, e.g., Bob.
L. has the right plan, ogged. As it happens I was chatting with your mother yesterday (Sunday brunch, you know) and she's of the opinion that you're entirely too thin and don't eat enough, and, having met you, I frankly agree with her.
L. has solved this one. Perhaps you could photo-blog the relationship with Mlle. RC, and ask La VT to email when you'd reached a sufficient level of avoirdupois.
It's a good plan, I might try it, if not for the insults to the honor of Unfogged.
Generally, LB, very few of the women have weight requirements at all, and a minimum bound is even more unusual. Typically, code about enjoying an active lifestyle and being "fit" serve to exclude.
I was asking a normative, rather than a descriptive question -- wondering if there's anything wrong with specifying a body type, or if there are particular ways one should go about it. I could go either way -- it does seem shallow, but on the other hand if beanpoles really don't do it for her, if makes sense to get that out of the way before she has to reject anyone who's bothered to show up for a date.
In fact photos are posted on the site. I'm not sure there are rules for what's allowed. If people don't like your requirements, they just ignore you, after all.
I was recently asked, by a friend's girlfriend who was trying to set me up with one of her girl friends, if having or currently working on a graduate degree is a requirement for me. My first thought was that that would be a crazy requirement, but I guess the fact is that it serves as a fairly good proxy, because I'm not sure I would date someone who isn't a) qualified to get a graduate degree if they so desired and b) is intellectually curious enough that they at least considered getting a graduate degree before deciding that some other considerations trumped them. Anyone else have thoughts on that as a requirment?
I don't mind pickiness. I just mind pickiness that excludes me (any my distinguished co-blogger.) But a 170 pound minimum seems unreasonable all by itself.
But a 170 pound minimum seems unreasonable all by itself.
I'd read it as code for "Big enough to make me feel like a delicate little slip of a thang." Not a requirement I share (see description of Mr. Breath somewhere in the archives), but plenty of women feel that way.
The person asking me clearly thought of law as a graduate degree, but I would be open to the idea that professional degrees are not graduate degress. Am I not currently working on a law degree?
My grandmother gives me shit for not eating enough, for some values of "shit". Do you want to be like my agéd grandmother? She's a lovely lady but probably not. Give ogged shit.
Because Wolfson subscribes to the "best defense is a good offense" school of thought. Think of all those fearful lurkers. I'm sure not giving Wolfson any guff.
Even at my 170lbs moments, I don't quite feel capable of stopping bullets, I must say. Unless possibly using the Adrian Veidt catch-the-bullet-with-your-hands method.
There is an old chestnut about a man who was waiting until he found the perfect woman.
The problem was that when he finally found her he found out she was looking for the perfect man.
Carlos Mencia says people get married when they realize at the same time that the person they are dating is the best will ever be able to get. I think there is a fair amount of truth to that.
I'm not 170 anymore, due to running regimen, but I could still stop bullets, most likely, in my pectoral, a la Teddy Roosevelt.
Anyone got any good vibes handy for a boring lawyer sending out clerkship applications? I don't have anything like an interview yet, but it worked for Chops.
When classes are in session, I usually weigh in at 145. Sometimes around Christmas, I can hit 160, but that's only if I make a point of eating so much I want to throw up (but don't).
All this to say: Why the fuck didn't anyone say "Okaaaaaay" upon reading the requirement Ogged listed here?
My Grandpa Kotsko told me once that, etymologically, our last name meant "Duck Farmer." Idiot that I was, I told some friends at school about it, leading to several years with an undesirable nickname. Now Grandpa Kotsko appears to make his living selling colon-cleansing vitamin supplements, which reportedly helped him to quit smoking by cleansing his system of nicotine. Each of the grandchildren (and they are legion -- he is a devout Catholic) reportedly has a Swiss bank account in their name, into which he slips a little money now and then, reportedly. He has contacts in Uruguay. He told me that on the day of the Oklahoma City bombings, all of the ATF agents had called in sick, because they're employed by the Federal Reserve, which orchestrated the attacks.
I don't think his etymology was correct, ultimately.
w/d - a friend recently pointed out that every woman I've dated since college has either had a graduate degree or been working on one - and that they've all been in the same field.
Being a short guy is exactly like being a flat-chested woman, BTW. Height requirements are at the top of most lists. Guys can't be as frank in print, but boob requirements can always be assumed to be a major consideration.
John, you talk out your ass a lot, you know that? Aside from a slight preference that a woman have these things you call "boobs," and despite my reputation for pickiness, I have no "boob requirements."
Do you think she doesn't actually know what 5'10, 170 looks like? I don't always have realistic ideas about female weight; perhaps she has made some sort of mistake in calculations.
An average NFL cornerback would be 5'10, 165 or so, and on the street, would look rather jacked.
170 seems like a pretty reasonable place to draw a line if what you're trying to rule out is 'looks skinny'. Obviously, there's always the problem of drawing any line -- if she'd be happy with 5'10, 171, how could she possibly say that 5'10", 169 is unacceptable? But barring that, which is equally a problem wherever she draws the line, her criteria probably include better than a quarter of the men in the relevant age group (5'10" is median for American men, right? And probably half or more of guys who are 5'10 are 170 lbs or over?) which doesn't seem insanely picky.
So long as there's nothing all that wrong with having physical requirements, these don't seem too bad.
So, I apparently meet the requirements, except that if I start running again (as I plan to do) I'll likely drop below the minimum weight. But there's no denying that I look pretty skinny right now.
Oh well, I didn't find that whole sense of humor thing attractive anyway.
Keep in mind that the apostropher has also recently stated his interest in people who are "deeply weird" and also in those who have gout. That said, I'm sure you're lovely.
Well I have read this post title more than once today, I just now read it for the first time as if one of the rhymes from "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover" had badly misfired.
I think that it is unconscionable that a short female person should be so shallow as to refuse to date men who do not meet her short, silly requirements, such as being taller than 5'10" and under the age of 35.
It seems to have become apropos to repeat an earlier post about my short (Chinese) girlfriend in Taiwan. Right before she met me she had rejected a six foot tall Chinese guy because tall people frightened her.
Not marrying her was the stupidest mistake of my sorry life. The second stupidest was not staying in Taiwan, where being short is OK, and where men with glasses are sexier than men without them, and where they still hadn't fully realized (ca. 1983) that students of the humanities are worthless and useless.
Am I the only one here who doesn't really consider 5'3" to be short? It's a bit shorter than the national average, I think, but not by much. Maybe Boston is a tall city?
FWIW, Allen Iverson's about five-ft-eleven and 165 lbs. Skinny for a pro athlete but still pretty jacked for a regular person despite not working out ever.
I'm just terribly pleased that, as a result of the earlier conversation, I now picture Wolfson as a duck (and plan to continue to do so in the future). Specifically, a mallard.
I think that it is unconscionable that a short female person should be so shallow as to refuse to date men who do not meet her short, silly requirements, such as being taller than 5'10" and under the age of 35.
I never posted such requirements, although 5'10" is a nice height. I think that 40 is my upper age limit though. I don't want to date someone 15-20 years older than I am.
I didn't mean you, BG, but the two short, silly women who wrongly disqualified ogged even as he was wrongly disqualifying them for his skinny, silly reasons..
Cecil isn't considering the phrase thematically, so to speak.
Of course! The evidence is all the stronger for its by-the-way nature; that is the formulation which comes unquestioningly to him, vanishing, as it were, into its use.
And it really is a translation. Friedrich von Logau.
I'll sub for you IRL, ogged. We'll wire up an earpiece and she'll never know.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 9:37 AM
She also has a maximum height that I think you might exceed. Forget this one!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 9:39 AM
Think of it as an advisory. She won't put you on a scale when you meet. Just claim that you're exceptionally dense—lead in your bones.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 9:40 AM
Aquaman's not gonna cut it. Sorry.
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 9:46 AM
You know, out of loyalty to my co-bloggers, maybe I should just refuse (that's right, refuse!) to date anyone whose criteria exclude any of them. (I might have to make an exception for Alameida's ovariciousness.)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 9:48 AM
Wait, maximum weight AND minimum weight? What does she want, a date with an exceptionally verbose barrel of cement?
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 9:48 AM
That should be "maximum height and minimum weight."
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 9:49 AM
Just so long as it doesn't roll its eyes and say "Okaaaaayyy," Isle.
Posted by L. | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 9:54 AM
Sigh. I remember 170 pounds...
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:08 AM
She'll go up to 220.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:10 AM
Dally for a while with Mlle. Relentless Cooking until you're the requisite weight, and then dump her for La Violent Tendencies. A woman who wants to punch everyone who's ever said something she finds annoying and a man who deems this "sense of humor" are clearly a match made in heaven. This is an opportunity not to be missed, Ogged, and love conquers all but you need to put a little effort into it. The time for action is now. All those Power Bars aren't going to eat themselves, you know.
Posted by L. | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:10 AM
Labs being a colossus, maximum heights that exclude him could yet allow 99% of humankind to slip in.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:12 AM
L., you're a jewel, and you're banned.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:13 AM
So what is the online dating etiquette on specifiying desired body type? (I admit the weight limit seems weird -- it's very hard to tell what any given number is going to look like on an actual person.)
Would it be obnoxious if she'd said something like "I'm generally not attracted to guys who look frail (or whatever she actually meant by the weight limit) or who are too much taller than I am."?
I should just refuse (that's right, refuse!) to date anyone whose criteria exclude any of them.
This might be pretty hard -- I'd think most people's criteria include "Shows up at least occasionally," which would exclude, e.g., Bob.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:14 AM
L. has the right plan, ogged. As it happens I was chatting with your mother yesterday (Sunday brunch, you know) and she's of the opinion that you're entirely too thin and don't eat enough, and, having met you, I frankly agree with her.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:14 AM
Vindication!!!!!
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:14 AM
She'll go up to 220.
Score! How does she feel about married guys with 2 kids?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:16 AM
L. has solved this one. Perhaps you could photo-blog the relationship with Mlle. RC, and ask La VT to email when you'd reached a sufficient level of avoirdupois.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:17 AM
It's a good plan, I might try it, if not for the insults to the honor of Unfogged.
Generally, LB, very few of the women have weight requirements at all, and a minimum bound is even more unusual. Typically, code about enjoying an active lifestyle and being "fit" serve to exclude.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:25 AM
I was asking a normative, rather than a descriptive question -- wondering if there's anything wrong with specifying a body type, or if there are particular ways one should go about it. I could go either way -- it does seem shallow, but on the other hand if beanpoles really don't do it for her, if makes sense to get that out of the way before she has to reject anyone who's bothered to show up for a date.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:28 AM
Is not an exchange of photos typical?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:30 AM
In fact photos are posted on the site. I'm not sure there are rules for what's allowed. If people don't like your requirements, they just ignore you, after all.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:31 AM
As a man with stringent specifications for women (not-girliness, not black, no makeup or heels, preferably world-class at something), Ogged, you're not really in a position to be indignant about pickiness.
Posted by L. | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:33 AM
I was recently asked, by a friend's girlfriend who was trying to set me up with one of her girl friends, if having or currently working on a graduate degree is a requirement for me. My first thought was that that would be a crazy requirement, but I guess the fact is that it serves as a fairly good proxy, because I'm not sure I would date someone who isn't a) qualified to get a graduate degree if they so desired and b) is intellectually curious enough that they at least considered getting a graduate degree before deciding that some other considerations trumped them. Anyone else have thoughts on that as a requirment?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:39 AM
I never said "not black," L.
I don't mind pickiness. I just mind pickiness that excludes me (any my distinguished co-blogger.) But a 170 pound minimum seems unreasonable all by itself.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:41 AM
How could you justify imposing on others a demand which you do not meet?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:42 AM
But a 170 pound minimum seems unreasonable all by itself.
You know how some people can't get to sleep as well without the familiar weight of the various sheets, blankets and comforters?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:43 AM
I think you have been pwnd!, Ogged. The 170+ requirement isn't any less reasonable than your no-eastern-europeans requirement, for example.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:43 AM
Ok, I really just object to pickiness that excludes me, and hoped that you'd all be outraged for your own reasons.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:45 AM
I think it excludes me, too, but I'm not outraged. I take it in stride. Be more stoic, ogged.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:46 AM
The time for action is now. All those Power Bars aren't going to eat themselves, you know.
That Simpsons episode where Homer goes on disability could serve as a useful reference.
Posted by JP | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:46 AM
But a 170 pound minimum seems unreasonable all by itself.
I'd read it as code for "Big enough to make me feel like a delicate little slip of a thang." Not a requirement I share (see description of Mr. Breath somewhere in the archives), but plenty of women feel that way.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:46 AM
The person asking me clearly thought of law as a graduate degree, but I would be open to the idea that professional degrees are not graduate degress. Am I not currently working on a law degree?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:47 AM
You are, to the best of my knowledge, working on a law degree.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:49 AM
"Big enough to make me feel like a delicate little slip of a thang."
Yeah, if it's not for stopping bullets, I imagine that's it. Though she only weighs 125 pounds.
I think it excludes me, too
Howcome no one gives Wolfson shit for his weight? He's scrawnier than I am.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:50 AM
Because you care more.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:51 AM
I would confound Girl #2. I regularly fluctuate b/w 165-175, sometimes on a weekly basis.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:52 AM
My grandmother gives me shit for not eating enough, for some values of "shit". Do you want to be like my agéd grandmother? She's a lovely lady but probably not. Give ogged shit.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:52 AM
Because Wolfson subscribes to the "best defense is a good offense" school of thought. Think of all those fearful lurkers. I'm sure not giving Wolfson any guff.
Posted by L. | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:54 AM
Michael, you may want to rethink your "eating Ex-lax for the flavor" plan.
Give b-wo shit for "agéd".
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:54 AM
39 to 35, of course
Posted by L. | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:54 AM
I'm sure not giving Wolfson any guff.
Not until you're 18, anyway.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:55 AM
Even at my 170lbs moments, I don't quite feel capable of stopping bullets, I must say. Unless possibly using the Adrian Veidt catch-the-bullet-with-your-hands method.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:57 AM
Not until you're 18, anyway.
I am 18. You missed my birthday.
...sir.
Posted by L. | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:57 AM
Always one step over the line with you, Wolfson.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:58 AM
I think that was a license to hand out guff, L. Not that you've shown yourself in need of one.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 10:59 AM
Well, excellent.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:00 AM
Unless possibly using the Adrian Veidt catch-the-bullet-with-your-hands method.
Oh, you also spend a lot of time wondering if you can do that despite not being a world class gymnast but rather an un-coordinated wretch?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:00 AM
There is an old chestnut about a man who was waiting until he found the perfect woman.
The problem was that when he finally found her he found out she was looking for the perfect man.
Carlos Mencia says people get married when they realize at the same time that the person they are dating is the best will ever be able to get. I think there is a fair amount of truth to that.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:04 AM
Oh, you also spend a lot of time wondering if you can do that despite not being a world class gymnast but rather an un-coordinated wretch?
Possessing acute powers of self-awareness, I do not actually wonder.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:10 AM
You can get treatments for acute self-awareness, you know.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:13 AM
Oh, that's what they told you you were being treated for?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:14 AM
Not your best work, w/d.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:17 AM
I'm not 170 anymore, due to running regimen, but I could still stop bullets, most likely, in my pectoral, a la Teddy Roosevelt.
Anyone got any good vibes handy for a boring lawyer sending out clerkship applications? I don't have anything like an interview yet, but it worked for Chops.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:18 AM
Not your best work, w/d.
See? Guff just rolls off like water off a duck's back.
Posted by L. | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:19 AM
Well, depending on who you ask, you should either join the Federalist Society or conceal your membership in it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:19 AM
L.'s true thoughts revealed!
See? Guff just rolls off like water off a duck's back. *sigh* He's so dreamy.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:25 AM
Ben, you remember that L's mom reads the site, yeah?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:28 AM
Yup, you've penetrated the secret all women conceal -- our unquenchable attraction to ducks.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:28 AM
L has taken notice of bw's ample duck butter supply.
Too late to join the federalists -- plus, I would hate myself too much. I think I joined the ACS. But not on the resume.
My strategy is to apply to every federal judge in the country.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:29 AM
Does L's mom have a weight requirement? 'Cause I'm almost certainly in the 1/2 + 7 range there.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:29 AM
our unquenchable attraction to ducks
Beware the ducks.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:30 AM
When classes are in session, I usually weigh in at 145. Sometimes around Christmas, I can hit 160, but that's only if I make a point of eating so much I want to throw up (but don't).
All this to say: Why the fuck didn't anyone say "Okaaaaaay" upon reading the requirement Ogged listed here?
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:30 AM
*sigh* He's so dreamy.
Ahem, cough, cough, ahem. Not your, um, not your best, um, work, Wolf...son. Eee.
Posted by L. | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:35 AM
Can we just be clear that when Wolfson, Kotsko and I go out, I'm the heaviest one? Thanks.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:37 AM
So what you're saying is that you're heavier than a duck? Burn him! Burn the witch!
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:39 AM
That's if he weighs the same as the duck, LB. Nice try, though.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:40 AM
Kotsko has never admitted to being a duck.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:40 AM
Hrmpf. Pedant.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:41 AM
My Grandpa Kotsko told me once that, etymologically, our last name meant "Duck Farmer." Idiot that I was, I told some friends at school about it, leading to several years with an undesirable nickname. Now Grandpa Kotsko appears to make his living selling colon-cleansing vitamin supplements, which reportedly helped him to quit smoking by cleansing his system of nicotine. Each of the grandchildren (and they are legion -- he is a devout Catholic) reportedly has a Swiss bank account in their name, into which he slips a little money now and then, reportedly. He has contacts in Uruguay. He told me that on the day of the Oklahoma City bombings, all of the ATF agents had called in sick, because they're employed by the Federal Reserve, which orchestrated the attacks.
I don't think his etymology was correct, ultimately.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:45 AM
Not your best work, w/d.
No, my best work was an unintended byproduct of me starting to comment regularly. This does not rule out 52 being my second-best work.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 11:47 AM
I just noticed
That's a bold observation, Ogged.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 12:05 PM
Thanks. I'm so used to closing the italics tag.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 12:07 PM
I'm hurt that no one has suggested that the woman who likes not-too-tall guys, 170-220 lb., be sent to me.
Those are very rare specs indeed, and they describe me to a T.
What did she say about agéd guys?
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 1:27 PM
w/d - a friend recently pointed out that every woman I've dated since college has either had a graduate degree or been working on one - and that they've all been in the same field.
Posted by ptm | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 1:55 PM
Sorry, John, not only does she cap age at the mid-thirties, but her minimum height is 5'10". I don't think she actually wants a date.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 1:55 PM
I'm crushed.
Being a short guy is exactly like being a flat-chested woman, BTW. Height requirements are at the top of most lists. Guys can't be as frank in print, but boob requirements can always be assumed to be a major consideration.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 1:59 PM
John, you talk out your ass a lot, you know that? Aside from a slight preference that a woman have these things you call "boobs," and despite my reputation for pickiness, I have no "boob requirements."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:05 PM
What'd she cap the height at? I meet the weight specification, and the whole punching people thing is pretty attractive.
Also: It's only a slight preference?
Posted by Tarrou | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:11 PM
Height is capped at 6'5". (Note: I don't actually know how tall Labs is, but for my blogging purposes, he's 7'2".)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:14 PM
I don't think she actually wants a date.
Says the expert.
Also, if she's got a 5'10" minimum height, heavier-than-Ogged is not an unreasonable minimum weight, is it?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:15 PM
Heavier-than-ogged is not unreasonable, but excluding people 5'10" and 165 lbs. does seem to be.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:18 PM
I meet the specs, and as such find them utterly reasonable.
Posted by Tarrou | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:20 PM
Do you think she doesn't actually know what 5'10, 170 looks like? I don't always have realistic ideas about female weight; perhaps she has made some sort of mistake in calculations.
An average NFL cornerback would be 5'10, 165 or so, and on the street, would look rather jacked.
So she must suck.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:21 PM
I meet the specs, and as such find them utterly reasonable.
How old are you?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:21 PM
Ok, I'm full of shit. An NFL cornerback would weigh more. But supstitute Div. 1 college for NFL, and I think my above comment holds true.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:22 PM
and supstitute substitute for supstitute
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:22 PM
John, you talk out your ass a lot.
I guess I'm at the wrong place. No personal reference was intended.
I have talked to women who were quite disappointed to find that some otherwise nice guys do have such a requirement, however phrased.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:24 PM
No no, if you talk out your ass a lot you're definitely at the right place.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:25 PM
Twenty-two. Don't tell me I've come this far just to fail some bogus, discriminatory age requirement.
Posted by Tarrou | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:25 PM
You guessed it Tarrou, too young.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:26 PM
I wasn't offended, John, and what Weiner said.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:26 PM
What's her lower age requirement?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:28 PM
It strikes me that the lady in question has excellent taste. (Didn't say "No Jews," I hope?)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:28 PM
170 seems like a pretty reasonable place to draw a line if what you're trying to rule out is 'looks skinny'. Obviously, there's always the problem of drawing any line -- if she'd be happy with 5'10, 171, how could she possibly say that 5'10", 169 is unacceptable? But barring that, which is equally a problem wherever she draws the line, her criteria probably include better than a quarter of the men in the relevant age group (5'10" is median for American men, right? And probably half or more of guys who are 5'10 are 170 lbs or over?) which doesn't seem insanely picky.
So long as there's nothing all that wrong with having physical requirements, these don't seem too bad.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:30 PM
(Didn't say "No Jews," I hope?)
I dunno, what does "Keine Juden" mean? Wait, how old are you, Matt?
eb, 25.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:30 PM
I'm 34, so if she capped at the mid-thirties and I don't fit the age requirement she really doesn't want a date.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:31 PM
I can tell you from experience that 5'11" and 170 can still look pretty skinny, even if you're out of shape.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:32 PM
Matt, she's yours if you nab her before your next birthday.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:32 PM
Yeah, you're right LB, she must not want a skinny guy.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:36 PM
I have trouble resisting the urge to gloat when people are punished for being too slender.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:37 PM
You've come to the right place, John.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:40 PM
So, I apparently meet the requirements, except that if I start running again (as I plan to do) I'll likely drop below the minimum weight. But there's no denying that I look pretty skinny right now.
Oh well, I didn't find that whole sense of humor thing attractive anyway.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:40 PM
You're better off this way, eb. But if you read any number of these personals, the slightest flash of personality is pretty appealing.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:44 PM
But, as you said, not only are her physical requirements unreasonably onerous, she's too short.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:45 PM
Oh yeah, she's out for me. I can't believe she excluded me and Labs. That takes some nerve.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:47 PM
So how tall is Labs? And if you don't know, what's your basis for saying that he's particularly tall at all?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:49 PM
Tall.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:50 PM
I thought Abu's agreed-upon blog-height was 6'10", and his agreed upon blog-weight was 239 lbs.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 2:59 PM
Uh, you just made that up, right?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 3:00 PM
Probably he's 5'3" and is merely protecting his secret identity.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 3:01 PM
That's surely possible.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 3:03 PM
Probably he's 5'3"
Yes, but in Celsius.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 3:10 PM
ogged, what are your minimum height requirements? Is this common for men? Do men dislike short women? Cause that would suck for me. I'm only 5'3".
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 3:21 PM
bg, I think the post is by now infamous.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 3:25 PM
170 looks skinny only if you are out of shape. 170, 5'10, with low body fat, would require a squatty amount of muscle. Which I know from experience.
So maybe she likes squatty guys. Or maybe she should say "not skinny" if she doesn't want to risk getting the weight wrong.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 3:26 PM
not that I have even followed this link or have any reason to care. Somebody ban me from this blog, for real, or I will continue to write inane crap.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 3:28 PM
People totally come to see these meltdowns.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 3:31 PM
I know I do.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 3:37 PM
Slol! Where ya been?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 3:38 PM
I wish I had a good story about that. But even if I did, I couldn't tell you.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 3:42 PM
Holy shit, Valerie Plame!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 3:42 PM
I can neither confirm nor deny that I am married to Joseph Wilson.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 3:43 PM
Me neither.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 3:46 PM
there's nothing strange about liking brunettes.
Posted by Katherine | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 3:47 PM
Unless you're a gentleman.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 3:48 PM
Do men dislike short women?
Absolutely not. Short women are more, um, maneuverable.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 3:58 PM
Keep in mind that the apostropher has also recently stated his interest in people who are "deeply weird" and also in those who have gout. That said, I'm sure you're lovely.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 4:01 PM
Well I have read this post title more than once today, I just now read it for the first time as if one of the rhymes from "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover" had badly misfired.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 4:02 PM
Also this.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 4:02 PM
But that was a compliment.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 4:04 PM
Re #110: My numbers were off. 6'8", 225 lbs. See Towards an Estimation of the Gayatollah's Proportions.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 4:04 PM
I'd forgotten about that. You crazy.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 4:07 PM
bgirl, I date short women.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 4:12 PM
I think that it is unconscionable that a short female person should be so shallow as to refuse to date men who do not meet her short, silly requirements, such as being taller than 5'10" and under the age of 35.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 4:16 PM
It seems to have become apropos to repeat an earlier post about my short (Chinese) girlfriend in Taiwan. Right before she met me she had rejected a six foot tall Chinese guy because tall people frightened her.
Not marrying her was the stupidest mistake of my sorry life. The second stupidest was not staying in Taiwan, where being short is OK, and where men with glasses are sexier than men without them, and where they still hadn't fully realized (ca. 1983) that students of the humanities are worthless and useless.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 4:20 PM
Am I the only one here who doesn't really consider 5'3" to be short? It's a bit shorter than the national average, I think, but not by much. Maybe Boston is a tall city?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 4:52 PM
FWIW, Allen Iverson's about five-ft-eleven and 165 lbs. Skinny for a pro athlete but still pretty jacked for a regular person despite not working out ever.
Posted by JP | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 6:04 PM
Ahem, cough, cough, ahem. Not your, um, not your best, um, work, Wolf...son. Eee.
Why the seeming diffidence? Is it fear of my wrath—as swift as lightning, as sure as the gods'—or hesitation before the object of your affections?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 6:33 PM
or hesitation before the object of your affections?
I'm inclined to be protective of L., but as she's been cutting people off at the knees all day, well, have at it, Ben.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 6:50 PM
I don't know ogged, it's pretty damn insulting for him to accuse her of being attracted to him.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 6:54 PM
I'm just terribly pleased that, as a result of the earlier conversation, I now picture Wolfson as a duck (and plan to continue to do so in the future). Specifically, a mallard.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 6:58 PM
Huh. My mental image is more Donald Duck: pantsless and ill-tempered.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 7:18 PM
I don't know why people worry that Wolfson is going to throw his weight around. We all know perfectly well that he has none.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 7:30 PM
Assuming ogged is telling the truth in 65, that is.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 7:59 PM
Very nicely done, apostropher.
Posted by Tarrou | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:00 PM
I think I weigh somewhere between 150 and 160, or something like that. I don't remember the last time I weighed myself, though.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:08 PM
I'm inclined to be protective of L., but as she's been cutting people off at the knees all day, well, have at it, Ben.
I have not been cutting people off at the knees. Have at the wrath, do you mean, or have at hitting on the barely-legals?
Posted by L. | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:19 PM
Hitting on the barely-legals, of course. We are not a wrathful blog.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:23 PM
ave at the wrath, do you mean, or have at hitting on the barely-legals?
You should have a much larger presence here, L. You're clearly one of us.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:24 PM
I think that it is unconscionable that a short female person should be so shallow as to refuse to date men who do not meet her short, silly requirements, such as being taller than 5'10" and under the age of 35.
I never posted such requirements, although 5'10" is a nice height. I think that 40 is my upper age limit though. I don't want to date someone 15-20 years older than I am.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:24 PM
I'm 6' even, but have always felt that 6'3" is the perfect height.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:28 PM
We are not a wrathful blog.
I'm more of a "mills of the gods grind slow" kinda guy, myself.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:34 PM
I didn't mean you, BG, but the two short, silly women who wrongly disqualified ogged even as he was wrongly disqualifying them for his skinny, silly reasons..
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:35 PM
I'm more of a "mills of the gods grind slow" kinda guy, myself.
Can't bring yourself to admit that it's the "exceeding small" part you like best, eh?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:37 PM
I'm not in a position to admit that, since I had always known it as "exceeding fine".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:38 PM
Hmm. Let's googlefight it.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:40 PM
Popular use would have me wrong, but since when I have I bowed to the turbid crowd? I note that Cecil is among the dissenters.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:40 PM
Victory.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:42 PM
Translation of:
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:42 PM
ogged, far too slow.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:43 PM
Cecil isn't considering the phrase thematically, so to speak. And I didn't know it was a translation from the German. Is it really?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:44 PM
when I have I bowed to the turbid crowd?
The turgid crowd, on the other hand...
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:45 PM
Cecil isn't considering the phrase thematically, so to speak.
Of course! The evidence is all the stronger for its by-the-way nature; that is the formulation which comes unquestioningly to him, vanishing, as it were, into its use.
And it really is a translation. Friedrich von Logau.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:47 PM
Ah, the translation has to rhyme.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:48 PM
that is the formulation which comes unquestioningly to him, vanishing, as it were, into its use
aka, off the top of his head.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:51 PM
Yes, exactly. Off the top of his head. This is a purely ad hominem argument: Cecil used, it's right.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:54 PM
Cecil used [it], it's right.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:55 PM
Kind of like the Gospels.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 8:57 PM
Tumid crowd.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 9:22 PM
ATM.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08- 8-05 9:32 PM