She is... a writer, so the writing... is vivid and engaging
This does not seem like valid reasoning to me. "She is a writer" does not imply "She is a good writer". Sounds like a fun book though.
It seems that ogged's reasoning might be, This is not merely an interesting story by a random nonwriter who decided to go on 150 dates in one year, but is, incidently, an interesting story that happened to a writer -- which is lucky for us.
Also, by "writer," ogged probably has in mind "good writer," not "someone who is published."
I might try this myself, and write my own "Year of Yes" book. Except instead of saying "yes" to everyone who asks me for a date (which would be a short book), I'm just going to spend a year asking everyone I want on a date and then absolutely refusing to take "no" for an answer.
okay, this isn't chick lit (sorry guys, i know you are disappointed), but : do any of you read the Institute for the Future of the Book blog? they have a poor title but are interested in intersections of technology, cultural studies,and literary culture; i'd bet a lot of you would like reading it. just look
But for those of us trying to think through how to deal with this situation, we have to start from the premise that there is no Iran Question, or whatever you want to call it. There's only how to deal with Iran with this administration in place.
Do you trust this White House's good faith, priorities or competence in dealing with this situation?
Based on everything I've seen in almost five years the answer is pretty clearly 'no' on each count. To my thinking that has to be the starting point of the discussion."
OT here, but the Iran threat thread has been overwhelmed by terrorists using American football chat as cover -- there are probably some coded messages in there.
One of you guys needs to spend a year striking up conversations with every woman you meet--homeless women, baristas, waitresses, whoever--and then asking out anyone who seems friendly. Then write a book about it.
bphd, my instinct is that this would run aground on different gender roles. Maria Davahna Headley (sp?) didn't have to date anyone who hadn't already shown interest. Whereas, guy who asks out every woman who seems friendly, that just says to me "Total skeeze or desperado who will piss a lot of women off."
You'd probably have to rule out store clerks, waitresses, etc. who may be required by company policy to be friendly (I think I've seen that some employees complain that mandatory-smile policies encourage male customers to think they're flirting.)
But the skeeze factor has come up before, and ogged's howling women friends might not mind it so much. So, ogged should definitely do this.
Matt, I think it would, too--which is why it would be interesting, right? And you'd have to be careful about the whole store clerk thing for sure; kind of the inverse of Headley's "be friendly to everyone" approach.
I only commented b/c ever since Ogged mentioned the book, I've been fascinated by thinking about how it would be basically impossible for a guy to write it, and trying to think of how to get around that....
I mean, men don't get asked out, but obviously this "fear of making conversation with women" thing is a big deal. Is it just a fear of making conversation with attractive women? And then wouldn't part of the interest of the book lie in figuring out whether or not, in fact, women-in-general/attractive-women/young-women etc., do view men talking to them as threatening, and under what circumstances?
i think part of it is that men are afraid of being seen as sketchy and/or afraid of rejection. Not every guy wants to be known as the guy who asks everyone out. Plus, on the whole this seems like a rather stupid book. What happens when you meet someone you actually like when you strike up a conversation with that hot chick at the library or wherever? Do you ignore it for the sake of your book?
29: I've known a couple of guys like that (one or two in college, a college friend of Mr. Breath's) and they aren't necessarily assholes, they just have no fear of rejection. Making a pass at every woman you meet only gets you anywhere one time in twenty or so; but if you're really indiscriminate, it's not impossible to find twenty women to make a pass at in a fairly short period of time.
I think the only reason you couldn't write a book like this from the male perspective is the double standard -- while a woman dating indiscriminately comes off as sort of wacky, kind, and open, a guy trying to do something similar would look either pathetic (if he couldn't get the hang of simply approaching enough women) or cruel (dating a lot of women he had no interest in.)
No, I don't mean "How to score with hot chicks." I mean, an honest sort of memorish thing. Obviously the fear of rejection would be huge, which raises the question: why don't women normally say yes to everyone who asks? I'd say it's partly fear--but of what? I mean, I'm not consciously afraid that if I go on a date with the guy at the autoshop, he's going to rape me, but it makes me uncomfortable when he asks. So obviously part of the appeal of The Year of Yes is her conscious decision to suspend that problem. I really wonder what would happen if a guy tried to consciously suspend his selection criteria and his fear of rejection....
29: Or Seduce and Destroy. But I think Bphd is imagining something where the man is not just trying to score lots of chix, but actually dating -- like the Year of Yes woman.
ac's link is more like that, esp. because that guy is all about being sensitive unlike the asshole's guides, but it still seems different from a Year of Asking Out Absolutely Everyone.
I think Bphd is imagining something where the man is not just trying to score lots of chix
Yeah boy. Any more questions about what women are thinking, just direct them here. (Right now they're thinking, "Guys who brag about knowing what women are thinking are losers.")
What happens when you meet someone you actually like when you strike up a conversation with that hot chick at the library or wherever?
I wondered that with this book, too; presumably it's discussed at one point, but what if she met a nice guy early on? Does she stand him up for her next random date, or?
I think a book like this could work from the male perspective. There's a few out there, but they seem to concentrate on 'scoring'. But if someone were to write a book explaining how he decided to ignore his usual dating rules, or someone shy explaining how he decided he was tired of sitting at the bar whining, there'd probably be a market for that.
It wouldn't have the so-called shock value; women generally don't ask men out nearly as often, so part of the fun of The Year of Yes I imagine is the take-charge, see-what-happens aspect of her dating project.
I think it would be cool to embark on a project of just asking out every guy that I find remotely intriguing, and see what happens with that.
I don't think this book premise sounds that great. How "take charge" is it really to just say yes to everyone? You're still sitting there until people ask you out.
Mmm. I'm not sure I buy the distinction the B and Weiner are drawing. I think both are implicitly mis-describing the way the dating scene is structured. I think there is a much stronger presumption that women who agree to a date are not going to want to go to bed with you than that men who ask a woman out are not going to go to bed with you. That matters, though I can't quite say why.
But if someone were to write a book explaining how he decided to ignore his usual dating rules, or someone shy explaining how he decided he was tired of sitting at the bar whining, there'd probably be a market for that.
I think you'd still have a gender-role problem that would make the guy look like a bastard. The problem is that in the standard 50's dating story, by asking a woman out, a guy is affirming that he is genuinely into her. For a guy to date women he isn't actually into, indiscriminately, makes him look like a heartless bastard should one of the women decide that she's into him: she's been tricked into exposing herself to rejection. (Come to think of it, I bet this has something to do with the "is this a 'date', or are we just hanging out?" problem.)
I don't think this is fair, particularly, but it would look bad.
I think there is a much stronger presumption that women who agree to a date are not going to want to go to bed with you than that men who ask a woman out are not going to go to bed with you. That matters, though I can't quite say why.
That's because ovaries are generally considered the scarce resource in mating markets.
There wasn't a book at the time. She says she did this when she was 20 or 21 and sick of dating NPR-listening nerdy types, and wrote the book later when people said "That would be a great book."
For a guy to date women he isn't actually into, indiscriminately, makes him look like a heartless bastard should one of the women decide that she's into him: she's been tricked into exposing herself to rejection.
It wouldn't work the same way, since you're right, there's a perception that women will date anyone who asks them and isn't outright repulsive, but men only ask out women they really want to sleep with, but that might be the selling point for a book. The writer could bill it as seeing what it was like to date like a woman, taking chances on people not immediately attractive, etc.
My 43 is addressing the same thing as Tim's 41 -- a woman who accepts an offer of a date hasn't made any further committment. A guy who asks a woman out has (again, in the 50's dating story -- I'm not saying this is a good rule) implicitly promised to take matters as much further as she wants to go.
So, to truly have a counterpart book, some guy who felt that his criteria weren't working for him would have to embark on this in order to shake up his dating strategies. In an authentic effort to find love. Then later he could use his notes to write a heartwarming book in which he reveals....
With a signed permission slip from BPhd explaining that I am not a skeezy guy, but am a strong feminist male trying to redefine masculinity, maybe I'd be willing to do the experiment. The tricky part would be getting the experimental subject sign the legal release.
50/51 following on 47, just because I'm an asshole.
there's a perception that women will date anyone who asks them and isn't outright repulsive
Is this true? I thought the perception was that men are much more indiscriminate at asking people out and women had to perfect their brush-off techniques. Though perhaps the perception is that this is so because men are perceived to want to sleep with anything in a skirt, anyway.
That said it does seem as though initiating contact might commit the man to more than saying "OK" commits the woman to. Still, some guy somewhere has probably developed a graceful "Let's just be friends" speech.
"which raises the question: why don't women normally say yes to everyone who asks? I'd say it's partly fear--but of what? I mean, I'm not consciously afraid that if I go on a date with the guy at the autoshop, he's going to rape me, but it makes me uncomfortable when he asks. "
Dare I say that it is exactly the same thing you constantly berate men about --- you don't like their look?
Their "look" includes physical appearance, of course, but also the extent to which they look intellectual or otherwise, wealthy or otherwise, and so on.
I have no idea what your type is, but I suspect that if this strange man who asked you out matched your type --- had the right physical appearance and the accessories that implied the right level of education and wealth --- your reluctance would be rather less.
27,37: re what happens when the people doing this fall in love, the "girl agrees to [dare/bet/plan] with friend to date acceptably large number of boys and falls in love with one of the earlier dates" is a pretty standard plot of romance writing aimed at pre-teens (almost all romances starring teens is actually aimed at 10-12 year olds).
The acceptably large number in question seems to be about 10, and typically one is meant to fall in love with number 3. One's sense of pride should keep one in the game, possibly secretly, until about number 7 while one realises the full extent of one's passion for number 3 and also all but destroys the changes of seeing him again, thus providing us with the second half of the book.
So I can only assume that people who do this kind of thing are unusually hard hearted. Or that number 3 really likes a good story at the expense of his fellows.
The project made me think of some lines from a Rachel Cusk novel:
She had often wondered what would happen if she took up the offers of the men who had commented upon her in the street. There was another world beneath the surface of the one she chose each day, a dark labyrinth of untrodden paths. Its proximity frightened her. She wondered if she would ever lose her way and wander into it.
It had stayed in my mind as something that all women think about.
I think the reason most women don't say yes to anyone who asks is because of an implicit judgment that gets made of the very fact that they asked. It's different when the person asking is someone you sort of vaguely know, or at least have seen around on more than one occasion, but I at least am wary of someone who's hitting on me the very first time they see me (especially outside of, say, drunken bar context), and think they are either
a) desperate
b) indiscriminate (i'm moderately attractive, but not enough so that I feel some sort oh "oh my god I've got to talk to that girl" sentiment is at play)
c) fixated on Titty
So maybe it's the case of "wouldn't want to be part of a club that would have me as a member" sort of thing. I guess I personally prefer to pursue men rather than have them pursue me. Then again, I don't pursue shit. So, fat lot of goo it does me.
56: no no, Bitch PhD raised a really interesting question, and it's not just that she's thinking of men who aren't her type, Maynard. (that is, not to read your mind, bphd, but i get the feeling and i bet most women get that little moment of "squeeve? what?")
what does that moment consist of?
a. yes, some generalized vague fear/awareness alert, you're right...
b. the surprise of having to switch how you're looking at someone, since i consider far fewer aspects of the human-ness & personhood of an acquaintance vs. a person i might date
c. some discomfort with suddenly being sexualized, or being openly seen as sexual. some surprise even, a feeling of "so, how am i being looked at here?"
d. just the discomfort of knowing someone wants something from you. and it's not clear what the thing they want is, but they certainly want to be dealt with in a personal way
and then the [huh? squeeve?] moment passes, and maybe even one goes on to be thrilled and accept, or whatever, but there is definitely that quick little gut-instinct "?!" moment first.
I am not being clear, but here's what I think the perception is.
Women are more likely to accept a date with someone they are not definitively attracted to just to 'see how it goes', but men rarely ask out women just to see what happens.
e.g. Woman (to a girlfriend): He's not really my type, physically, but he seems sweet enough, and who knows? It could be fun.
Man (to a different friend): I'm not really attracted to her, physically, but I figure we might have a good time, so I asked her out.
I think the Woman is more likely to look like she's fun and open-minded, where the Man is probably looking a bit sleazy (I'll fuck anything that moves) or desperate (I don't like her much, but I'm really lonnnely.).
And I think this stems from the perception that women are less discriminating in their preferences in physical beauty.
Having said that, yes, of course my sense that I won't date the auto shop guy is partly classist. It's also, though, partly about social norms exclusive of class (sort of): that is, one doesn't accept invitations from complete strangers, and the kind of guy who will ask out a woman he has just meant is violating that rule. I think that women learn to treat even minor violations of social rules w/r/t dating as potentially threatening (rape culture and all that), so it makes sense that, in that context, one would be wary of men one doesn't have some connection to (a mutual friend, work in the same industry, whatever).
But of course, what's interesting about the Year of Yes book is that we know, in fact, that the vast majority of men are not stalkers/rapists/serial killers, and that the problem of meeting people who aren't in one's immediate social circle is a real one. It's therefore an interesting experiment. I suppose the real reason I'm interested in a guy's side of this is that I'm assuming that, for men, the worry about "I don't know anything about this person" is less--but that because men are supposed to play the role of the person who asks, that other kinds of selection criteria come into play.
(Btw, don't forget that I'm the woman who dated guys I met in internet chat rooms, sight unseen, for a summer. And who fell in love with one of 'em. In that case, of course, my selection criteria was "can write.")
#36: Well, when the guy is interpreting something the woman has, in fact, actually said, I don't think it's quite the presumption you're fearing ;)
67: Oddly, that's been my experience, too; looking at most of my married/coupled friends, in general, the woman is more conventionally physically attractive.
It pretty much is 'women pretty, guy is carrying an extra 10% body weight. She still is attracted to him.' I can't think of a couple I know where the guy is mr. washboard abs and the girl is pleasantly plump.
#70, Jamie Foxx has a penchant for larger girlfriends, and in his Barbara Walters interview, said of one of them that when they walked down the street together they resembled the number 10.
69: That's actually not infrequently the case in black and hispanic couples.
Yikes, I'm having trouble passing this through my parser.
But geez Louise, is there still somebody surprised that men care more about looks when selecting a date than women do? I thought this was a commonly known fact.
So are we saying that (white) unattached men are on average better-looking than (white) unattached women? That seems to be where we're going if we think that in (white) couples the woman is usually better-looking than the man, unless we just want to say women are better-looking than men in general.
My point being, this sounds pretty anecdotal, and if we're being anecdotal I have some hott Maureen Dowd pictures to prove that the good-looking women are not all getting hoovered up.
Women are generally better looking than men, both because they put more effort into it and because we're conditioned to associate women with teh sex. Also, I don't necessarily think the dating dynamic is so different in black and hispanic couples and b+h menfolk are more open-minded; the operative variable is what's considered attractive in women.
In general (yes, yes, we can all cite exceptions thank you very much) women look better because that is what men want and men earn more money because that is what women want and BOTH men and women want to be attractive to the opposite sex.
That is how we got to the top of the food chain. It may be good or it may be bad but it is a fact.
#77: What Tia said. Women look better than their male partners because women spend more time and money on how they look than men do. Mostly.
#75: The question re. who cares more about looks is does that have anything to do with who is supposed to be in charge of making the initial selection? I think it's really weird that we seem to be the one animal species where it's the women, rather than the guys, who are supposed to use looks to attract a mate. And I have a strong suspicion that this has to do with the fact that looks = status (for women) while for men, it's other things (including how good the guy's woman looks) that = status.
#82: Again, *why* do people want this? Presumably a big reason women want men with money is that men have more economic power than women do; if this weren't the case, it wouldn't matter nearly so much (and I suspect that more and more, as women succeed in the professions, that we care about this a lot less). And I really think the reason guys want women who look good is that good looking women reflect status on the man.
Fair enough. I've been pretending to be Harry Potter all day, along with cooking and prepping for tomorrow's class, and my brain may not be functioning so well by this point....
And I really think the reason guys want women who look good is that good looking women reflect status on the man.
I'm reasonably confident that the reason I want a woman who looks good is because I like fucking good-looking women. And I'm reasonably confident that the status having a good looking woman bestows on me is secondary: most men like fucking good-looking women, so I have something they desire and want to emulate, which is the basic foundation of status.
A lot of guys who are really into sex per se aren't so much into good looks. ("If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, make an ugly woman your wife".) For one thing, sex is more tactile and looks are more visual. But if people see you with a hott woman, you score points even if she's no fun at all.
Also, I don't necessarily think the dating dynamic is so different in black and hispanic couples and b+h menfolk are more open-minded; the operative variable is what's considered attractive in women.
Yes, exactly.
#75: The question re. who cares more about looks is does that have anything to do with who is supposed to be in charge of making the initial selection?
Yup, that was my point. It's easier to tell quickly whether one finds someone physically attractive or not than it is to determine if they have a good sense of humor, or make enough money, or how they treat other people. (Blah, blah, in terms of hey, I just met you, want to go for coffee?)
If women have been conditioned to expect that money/humor/treatment are what drives 'attractiveness' in men, it would make sense that they'd accept dates with less than desirable physical specimens, because you'll need to go on the date to gauge what is considered important.
A guy who does the same thing (LB's point way back when) will seem insincere, because the expectation is that if he goes to the trouble to arrange a date, he's already attracted.
A lot of guys who are really into sex per se aren't so much into good looks.
I'd like to see your evidence for this. The only (ancedotal) evidence I'm aware of suggests exactly the opposite -- guys who are really just into sex are purely more concerned about good looks than anything else.
My evidence that looks = status is that you rarely see wealthy men dating women who are very attractive but not expensively groomed. And that we tend to think "expensively groomed" = "pretty." Which it obviously doesn't.
I don't think anyone really has to think very hard to come up with examples of extremely attractive, but mousy/shy/unfemmey women who seem to get dates very rarely. Or alternate examples of women who are perfectly okay looking, but in fact not especially gorgeous, who nonetheless get a lot of attention because they have nice hair, clothes, and makeup.
Of course looks equal status, but you seemed to be saying, b, that men want good-looking women primarily because of status, whereas it seems pretty clear to me (and Urple), that status is secondary to just finding good looks pleasing.
92: Jude Law. Obviously he's really into sex. His public girlfriend is very conventionally pretty in a spectacularly unspecial way, i.e., great for status; his private tastes, at least in one publicized incident, apparently run cute-ish, curvy, not so conventionally pretty.
Also, Tomas in The Unbearable Lightness of Being, who became a "curiousity collector" in his womanizing. Picking fictional characters is perhaps cheating, but I think that book was pretty consistently true.
Status is presumably secondary to finding good looks pleasing on a conscious level, obviously.
But I still maintain that if you pay attention to who the rich guys are dating, you'll discover that a lot of the women aren't especially attractive (but are expensively groomed, so they look like they're attractive in a superficial way). And if you look around at who the non-rich guys are dating, you'll find a number of very pretty women whose attractiveness doesn't get a lot of attention because they're not playing it up.
I think the mistake here is pretending that there is some always existing rootedness to any of the status signifiers. For men, money is status, and it helps attract women. There are some obvious reasons for considering money important, but that's not necessarily the only reason people value it. For women, looks are status, and it helps attract men. Again, there are obvious reasons for looks to be highly valued, but I don't think the obvious ones are the only ones.
Am I the only person here who has ever had a young man confess, in confidence, that he really liked some girl but wasn't sure about getting together with her because his friends didn't think she was hot?
Am I the only person here who has ever had a young man confess, in confidence, that he really liked some girl but wasn't sure about getting together with her because his friends didn't think she was hot?
I've never heard anything like that, and I'd be shocked to hear it from anyone I know. That's just stupid.
if you pay attention to who the rich guys are dating, you'll discover that a lot of the women aren't especially attractive (but are expensively groomed, so they look like they're attractive in a superficial way)
There are a lot of variables at work here, though. It depends when the guy became rich, for one thing. Maybe he wasn't rich when they married, but now that they're rich, she spends a lot of her time tending to herself in the ways that make people look plastic and gross. Maybe she was actually hot when she was younger, but since most really rich people are older, you don't think of the hot ones as also being rich. Probably some other permutations too. But now I'm finally going to see Brokeback Mountain.
Am I the only person here who has ever had a young man confess, in confidence, that he really liked some girl but wasn't sure about getting together with her because his friends didn't think she was hot?
I've never heard anyone say this, and I have trouble even imagining it being said by anyone over the age of 14.
Right. Plus, the fact that "fat" women were considered teh hott just fifty years ago, and now it's the slim muscular ones. Obviously that isn't just some kind of natural expression of men's interest in good-looking women, since the definition of what's good-looking changes fairly dramatically over time.
103: Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with you globally, b, but I don't think that's a clear cut argument for the status case; men could just be conditioned to have different tastes now, but with aesthetics still as the primary operator.
Evidence that people who are primarily interested in sex care less about looks: swingers. The bdsm crowd. Street prostitution
I am not sure these are cases that represent the mainstream of male sexual desire, or even men primarily interested in sex. Rather, they represent freakish outliers who are either desperate, kinky, or have made sex the focus of their life in some unsual way. (Not that there's anything wrong with that! Ok, so I think there is, but a discussion for another time)
To generalize, in men the connection between visual stimulation and sexual desire is very, very tight. For most men, *just seeing* a woman of surpassing attractiveness in skimpy attire initiates sexual ideation/drool response in a way that a perfectly presentable woman does not. Now, it may be that the description of beauty that trips this switch is (dark chords) socially constructed, but the response, not so much, I suspect.
B and I must know different kinds of guys than the rest of you.
I don't think that there are any guys who would brag about being concerned with how good their girlfriend looks to others. It's more a confession, and seriously guys, no one is going to confess anything to ogged.
One example would be after a couple breaks up and the guy confesses that his hott partner had been frigid or otherwise not fun. He wouldn't do that in the middle of the relationship, and afterwards it would be in the context of complaining about her, rather confessing to superficiality.
The dialogue ogged reported a few days ago by a guy complaining about his trophy wife would be an example too.
Guys who are into scoring a lot might not be especially into sex. Just lots of wham / bam quickies.
Some of the guys I'm thinking of were black, and it may be anecdotal but I'm convinced that black guys have different standards of beauty. White women I've known with big butts verified the stereotype too.
109: I bow to no one in my ogged-mocking, but I don't think it's fair to say that he's too interested in looks. That can't account for this. We've seen pictures.
Why the argument that, if men respond to (female) attractiveness, attractiveness is not therefore a manifestation of status? Does everyone agree on what "attractive" is, in all places and all periods? Obviously not. So therefore not only must it change, but it must change according to *some criteria that are socially meaningful in an other than biological sense*? Aren't we fairly comfortable with the recognition that an aesthetic sense in *all other areas* is, among other things, an expression of social status?
Plus, we all seem pretty okay with the idea that women go for guys with social status (expressed in various ways). Are men, like, a different species?
I've got to side with B and Gandolf here. I haven't had friends admit they worried about what others thought of their potential girlfriend, but a couple have all but admitted that to me. There is some sort of system of meaning in place, and people worry about what it means if they make an unconventional, downscale choice. It isn't like this is limited to dating or anything; it's just not excepted from dating.
What I don't get is what people seem to be seeing anew here. Is there some conclusion y'all are drawing from this? People respond to incentives; many incentives are social constructions. Is there something more here?
I think Bphd was saying that we are okay with accepting that that is the truth, not that it should be the truth. (And, as mentioned in 36, I have mad insight into the feminine mind.)
I would now like to totally disprove that parenthetical by raising some questions about the whole "If a man asks a woman out he is obliged to be expressing sexual interest in her" thing. How big a foul is it not to press things at the end of a date? I've heard different stories from different female friends. Though the stories weren't quite contradictory: one said "If a guy didn't kiss me at the end of the [first/second? can't remember] date, I would feel like shit," and the other said "I wish you hadn't kissed me at the end of the second date."
Perhaps our hypothetical author could chat up anyone who seems friendly, and ask some of them out to low-pressure situations, like coffee dates?
117 to 115. I hit "preview" and saw that SCMT had commented, thus making a number necessary; but on preview the numbers were invisible, thus making it impossible for me to tell which number was necessary. Tragedy!
I don't think anyone is saying status has no role in the appeal of attractive women, Bphd. Not me, at least. But I do think its wrong to think that male focus on female attractiveness is not merely, or in most cases largely, a focus on a high status.
#117: Yes, exactly. I'm hardly *approving* of the idea that status matters. In fact, I disapprove. But it is true that people mostly pair up with others in their own social class, and I do think that status/class matters a lot *more* than the things we say matter, like looks, money, etc. Pretty Woman is total fiction.
Pressing things at the end of a date is *always* a mistake. Signals, people, signals.
Ok, try again. Men want to be with attractive women primarilty because they are attractive. Secondarily, perhaps, because being with an attractive woman increases their status. So, yes, the secondary motive exists, but no it isn't the primary motive.
Think there is an extra negative in 119, if that accounts for the confusion.
Are 120 and the last paragraph of 119 in tension, do people think?
And, if a man asks a woman out to some date-like situation, they have a quite nice conversation etc., and he doesn't kiss her, and doesn't try to get another date, is she crushed? Is he a cad? Postulate that she has the level of interest in him that would ordinarily be required for a man to ask a woman out.
yes they are, but can be reconciled. No kiss on the second (or maybe first) date is probably hard to overcome. That said, you ought to know by the kissing time whether or not it will be well received. In which case, if not, B suggests to run out the clock and go into the locker room with a bit of your dignity intact.
as to 123, I don't think the guy in question can be a cad unless you would argue that the female in the above scenario is a cad for not desiring a kiss at the end of the date. The date is a trial period for both parties. Neither party is locked in for making out.
That's how I think it ought to be; which means that a guy could embark on the chatting-up-any-woman-who-seems-friendly project without being cruel as per 33, 41, 43, etc.
The problem of skeeviness has not yet been solved.
I hadn't read all those posts. When I've been single, in recent years, I've tended to chat up a lot of women. That differs from my college strategy, which was to get blinding drunk and see who takes advantage of me. Although that method worked on occasion, I never really felt as though I'd "scored."
I see nothing wrong with talking to lots of women, though I'd hold off the whistling. And if going on dates and not kissing the girl afterwards makes you an asshole, then I'm one, although I think there's much better evidence for that elsewhere.
#117: Yes, exactly. I'm hardly *approving* of the idea that status matters.
I'm not sure what this means. Status here seems to be a placeholder for a whole series of other "good qualities." It might mean cash, or looks, or education, or religious faith, or ethnic background, or some combination of the above. Status matters more than looks because it includes looks, among other things, as a component. If you change the components, status will still matter. It will just be made up of other components.
I do think that status/class matters a lot *more* than the things we say matter, like looks, money, etc.
Ehh. If you look at status/class in bands, I'd bet people mate among neighboring bands with some frequency. Poor boy grows up, goes to college, and marries the rich girl? Heard it. Genders switched? Heard it.
Pretty Woman is a fantasy for lots and lots and lots of reasons; I don't think anyone is confused about that. I'm not actually sure how it relates.
The no kiss/cad thing depends on expectations and prior knowledge, no? On a genuine getting-to-know-you date, certainly there's no obligation to try to kiss someone at the end. But if you know in advance that the other person is hot for you, then you probably ought not go on the date if you don't feel the same way because you'll either not kiss her, and crush her soft little heart, or you will kiss her, and make the eventual breakup that much worse.
Pretty Woman totally happened. To wit: An old rich fellow, not bad looking, rented out a whore for a period of time. She wasn't like anyone he'd ever met before. But he didn't ask her to marry him.
In how many cases can it be said that you genuinely know the other person is hot for you? Even if you did, and were uncertain about your own feelings, would it be improper to go on a date to see how things went? Or, conversely, if you were hot for the person, but things went badly, or you changed your mind for some reason during the date, would that make you a cad?
What if you were hot for the other person, but confidence failed for some reason? Or there were some mitigating factor against making out? Are you still a cad?
If so, I think lots of us are cads. Lots of us probably are cads, but for better reasons than that.
I can just see this thing turning from "amusing story" to "crushing Bobby Brady-level comeuppance."
But I actually think SCMT is right in the rest of that post:
Just ask her to meet up; if she is interested (and I don't think women are as impressed by the ability to dunk as men are), she'll sort out your disinterest as long as you can keep youself from making a pass at her.
It'll be rare, particularly if you're doing a year of chatting up any woman who seems friendly, that you'll know a woman is so into you that it'll break her tender heart if you don't kiss her at the end of the date. And in those circumstances, if you think you might be interested, you ought to find some way to audition her anyway; wouldn't she rather have a chance? So there won't be a lot of deliberate heartbreaking involved in such a project.
Also, this makes me feel less of a jerk for all the time I spend trying to egg Ogged into various dating schemes. So it's settled: Come spring when a young man's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love, Ogged starts his year of "hey, baby."
I guess y'all should know that I reset the Tivo a while back and didn't tell you about it. Maybe if you'd been nicer to me, I would have shared. Suckas.
Fuck. So I"m plumbing the depths of technical virginity by myself? Ah, well...I'll think of it as exploring new vistas, boldly going where no man, etc.
What are you smoking, Cristone? The link I gave works.
Dan Harmon is associated with Channel 101. The line is from a post to the forums he made that was turned into a song for him in the third episode of Channel 101: The Musical.
The business of guys resetting their Tivos several times a day wasn't meant as a model to live by, it was just a description of a guy who was primarily into sex, period -- with little attention to high standards, class, or looks. An ideal type only in a Weberian way.
I think that looks can be a marker for class or status to a certain extent, but a good-looking woman per se brings some status to here man, whereas it's mostly a guy's property and future that brings status to a woman. But as women have more rewarding careers, that could change and probably has.
Unsuccessful guys tend to hope that love will be this other pure realm where their lack of success isn't important, and an escape from this crass world, and lots of movies, etc., tell everyone that that's true, but really the world of love and marriage tends to be continuous with everything else.
As (I think) the person who initially brought up the "guy, by asking a woman out, commits himself to showing any further level of interest that she is open to" idea, I want to reiterate that I don't think that this should be an obligation, or that a guy who has no further interest at the end of a date is doing anything wrong by backing off -- just that this expectation is out there, and might make our hypothetical serial dater look like a cad to readers of his hypothetical memoir.
166, 167, 168: Oh, come on. Guys really overestimate the amount of trouble you can get into by asking someone out, pleasantly, and taking no for an answer. (Correct answer: None.)
I only meant that no kiss on the second date would clearly telegraph non-interest, and would not read as chivalrous, not that my feelings would be crushed.
I've heard guys say it (I'd date an ugly girl if it wasn't for the peer pressure) more than once.
Those guys are just telling you what you want to hear. They are being PC to you and giving a rationale for what you and others think is their boorish behaviour.
It's not much different from women saying they don't really care about their man's money or status and then viola, more often than not ending up with a man who is tall and slighlty higher than them on the money ladder.
We say what we are expected to say but we usually do what we want to do and rationalize about it.
Guys really overestimate the amount of trouble you can get into by asking someone out, pleasantly, and taking no for an answer.
Really? See, my instinct has always been to think that people (um, women) would often be, like, "As if!" Or "If jerks like you keep asking for my number, I'm going to stop smiling on the street." That is why this book needs to be written. So guys can gain this valuable knowledge.
And I think that, if it were well presented that this was a way of getting past your own hangups and unsuccessful dating strategies (as it was for Headley), the author could avoid giving off the impression that he's a cad. Headley (apparently) didn't come across as always leading men on, and I think in our culture the harmful stereotype is much more that women lead men on than vice versa. At least, lead them on to some place short of sex (post-sex, I think it may be "stringing them along," or "dragging my heart around").
Oh, come on. Guys really overestimate the amount of trouble you can get into by asking someone out, pleasantly, and taking no for an answer. (Correct answer: None.)
I agree, Lizardbreath, but I was also one of those guys (afraid to ask a girl out) years ago. It was not a rational fear but it was a very real fear. It took a certain amount of maturing on my part to get over it. My problem was that I was making way too much of a big deal out of asking someone out. Movies and such had told me that you ask the right person out, you fall in love, and you marry for life, which is a pretty big and unrealistic expectation to carry into a first date.
My sister and Mother explicitly told me to date more girls as friends but I recall responding "If I want to go out with friends I'll go out with my guy friends."
I'm surprised that guys aren't strategizing how to get Year of Yes into the hands of as many women as possible so that they'll be primed for their invitations.
I've often been tempted to write such a book. So far my efforts to impart my 'great' dating wisdom to my teen sons had been met with a stone wall.
My book would be essentially the following:
1. If 'being yourself' isn't working then change.
2. How to tell before saying a word if there is interest.
3. What a date is, and what a date is not.
4. Practice and repetition make it easier.
5. Traps and pitfalls.
A long time ago I read "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and I think my book would mostly be a modernization of that classic. Some things never really change much.
See, my instinct has always been to think that people (um, women) would often be, like, "As if!" Or "If jerks like you keep asking for my number, I'm going to stop smiling on the street."
Well, okay, both of these responses are well within the realm of possibility (harsh, but possible) -- neither, on the other hand, has anything to do with restraining orders. Rejection is certainly possible, and if you're asking women out indiscriminately, likely -- but being rejected, unpleasant though it is, doesn't count as getting into trouble.
Tripp, "date more girls as friends" isn't exactly what I was thinking of. Never really had the problem of thinking that women would be put off if I tried to make Just Friends with them. I'm thinking, if you're at a bus stop or wherever, and you pass some innocuous remark about the weather to the woman next to you, and she responds pleasantly, and there's one more conversational turn, and the bus is coming, can you actually ask her for her number? Even if you don't see Year of Yes poking out of her backpack?
I guess 177 answers the question. But there's also the problem of "what if you get that kind of rejection and then run into her in a social situation, wouldn't that be awkward?" Also, if being asked out by a random would really annoy a lot of women, one would not wish to cause needless pain. Still, this does not seem so insuperable; I think some guy needs to try this.
I hate it when money and status turn into stringed instruments.
Couldn't resist.
Weiner, whether she's going to think you're creepy or not is going to depend on the conversation (asking for a number after only saying how's the weather? a bit shady. asking for a number/low-key coffee date after an animated five-minute chat? maybe fun!) and well, whether you give off creepy vibes.
In either case, the worst thing that happens is that she says no and gives you a dirty look. She's unlikely to be so frightened or wary that she never smiles at men again (!)
Well, James Bond, besides not being real, has lots of confidence for a reason. Rejection is worse for a guy without confidence. It's a big vicious circle, obviously, but advice like "Be confident!" and "Don't worry about rejection!" work best for people who don't need that advice.
By your description of the meeting I surmised that you had already had enough social interaction with this woman to know if you were being an unwanted intrusion or not. I would certainly never advocate asking random women on the street for their numbers right out of the blue! That would be incredibly rude and almost criminal.
So what if you asked and she said "no thanks" and you later met her in a social setting? I don't think that would be terribly akward. She might remember you favorably. The worst that could happen, I suppose, is if she told the group you had 'accosted her' at a bus stop, but that would be a lie.
178: Well, sure, but it's a category of hyperbole that comes up a fair amount: in discussions of sexual harassment; of rape, and what consent means... I really do get the sense, from conversations about sexual issues with men, that lots of you guys have a conception that making a sexual or romantic approach is an offense somehow -- like it's on a continuum with rape or harassment, but much much milder. This is, to put it mildly, nuts, and so I tend to comment on even jokes made on the basis of that assumption.
179: Sure you can. Don't take it personally if she says no, but there's not a thing wrong with that. (Something I've seen suggested is, in such circumstances, pre-emptively handing her your number and saying that you'd like to see her again, and she should call you.)
I would certainly never advocate asking random women on the street for their numbers right out of the blue!
But the book project would involve something pretty close to that. Well, not right out of the blue, but at least talking to women on the street or wherever much more than you ordinarily do. And probably erring on the side of asking for her number. But obviously judgment is called for (as it was in Headley's case) -- if she's going for the pepper spray say "It was nice talking to you" and walk away.
Something I've seen suggested is, in such circumstances, pre-emptively handing her your number and saying that you'd like to see her again, and she should call you.
I was under the impression that that was a somewhat fuckwitted move. In fact, I can tell you exactly where I get that impression: Sushi for Beginners, by Marian Keyes. To say anything more would constitute spoilage, I guess.
Very very good point. I think many younger men feel that there is something wrong in sexually desiring a woman. They think of bad examples such as rape, harrassment, 'only wanting me for my body,' or 'bad before marriage.'
Over the years I have gotten more comfortable with my own sexuality to where I now no longer deny it. I don't run around bragging about it and I am mindful of other's feelings but I am also true to myself and my desires and preferences.
Opinions vary on whether this works (you may be seen as a friend), but—if there's a chance that you'll see her again in some social context, e.g. synagogue softball—asking for or giving an e-mail can be a little bit less threatening.
A couple of times I made a project of writing notes to cute guys I saw on the subway, or in one case, a guy who was my waiter in a restaurant, with my name and phone number and something about what struck me about them. In the subway cases, I didn't speak to them before I gave them my note, but then I had to explain what I was doing. The very first time I ever did it, I got a call. The guy had been handsome and well-dressed and speaking Spanish to a couple of his friends, so on a very silly whim, right before I got off the train, I wrote him I note that said "Eres muy guapo" (you are very handsome) with my name and number. (I was later pissed at myself that I hadn't written something in a more natural Latin American idiom, like "Te ves bien" or "Luces bien.") Anyway, he called the next day, we went out, and it was one of the best first dates I have ever been on in my life. We were quickly and palpably attracted to each other; we had a surprising overlap in interests despite being of different race and class; we chatted about Latin American lit, his songwriting, psychology and social work, easily and naturally switching between languages, I got multiple nice guy (not "nice guy") cues from him--all in all. There was only one catch. He had a girlfriend. And before you all get skeeved, it wasn't like that. He disclosed it immediately; he wasn't intending to cheat on her; he was in the process of psychologically adjusting to the fact that he was a new and unplanned father and a relationship he had intended to be casual was becoming the focus of his life, and he couldn't quit the renumerative job he hated because of the baby, etc., and he just wanted a little break to chat with the random white girl on the train who'd asked him out. The other two times I did it I didn't get a response (the waiter may have been gay, in fact).
I used to think it was "renumerative" and "renumeration," too. Since it involves money, the "numeration" part seems right. The correct words look/sound weird. According to webster.com, "remuneration," like "munificent," derives from the Latin "munus" (gift).
he was in the process of psychologically adjusting to the fact that he was a new and unplanned father and a relationship he had intended to be casual was becoming the focus of his life, and he couldn't quit the renumerative job he hated because of the baby, etc.,
Jeebus. I have to admit that stories like this make me sympathetic to the male right groups (or whatever the people who want to be able to deny financial responsibility for a kid prior to its birth are called). I feel bad about that sympathy, but I definitely feel it.
To 194: I'm still having trouble getting over that, particularly living in a big city and seeing attractive women on the train, etc. The net effect is probably to make me appear creepier than I would appear if I were to approach this in some yet-to-be-determined "normal" way.
Well, not approaching attractive women on the train out of fear of rejection is time-honored, reasonable, and non-creepy. So you can keep on doing exactly what you're doing now, so long as you remember that if you wanted to strike up a conversation and ask for a phone number, you wouldn't be doing anything wrong.
To be fair to the guys, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't thinking bad things about you. There are women who seem to regard the fact that men ask women out at all, even in a non-creepy way, as an imposition. For example, some older women I knew were het up that Raj asked Robin the secretary out after he was kicked off of The Apprentice: 2. However, they are ridiculous. If you are nice and chill and non-creepy, take the hint when women try to send leave me alone vibes, you're not doing anything wrong.
True -- I shouldn't put the responsibility for the misconception all on the guys, there are women who are offended simply by being approached. But (a) as Tia says, assuming that you're behaving in a reasonable and polite fashion, and cheerfully take 'no' for an an answer, you aren't doing anything wrong, and (b) women who are offended by a polite approach are, while not non-existent, rarer than most men seem to think they are.
What if it's a woman who works at the same place I do, and who I've determined also lives in my same neighborhood, and with whom I've frequently shared an elevator? In a situation like that, is it more or less creepy to studiously avoid social interaction with her?
Maybe my kick-ass beard makes me look like an arrogant grad student who can't be bothered to talk to the commoners, though, and she's actually the one who's intimidated to talk to me!
Anita Hill started this whole thing. It's all about looks, you know? Because if Clarence Thomas looked like Denzel Washington, this would have never happened! She'd be all, "Oh, stop it, Clarence, you nasty! Your fine self!" So, what's sexual harrassment, when an ugly man wants some? "Oh, he ugly! Call the police! Call the authority!"
There was this hot Lutheran woman in one of my seminars -- kind of disaffected and unsure she wanted to go into ministry, which is so hot -- but I never talked to her until the end of the semester, when she revealed that she had really enjoyed having me in class and liked what I had to say and... then the next semester she was off to do her internship in North Dakota or something. Plus, the Lutheran seminary is just north of 55th St., and as everyone in Hyde Park knows, anywhere north of 55th is "the ghetto" and you'll be shot on sight, so it probably wouldn't have worked.
Don't you mean "south of 60th"? The bigass liquor store is on 53rd.
I pity the fools who are too timorous to go to Rajun Cajun, Harold's Chicken Shack, Ribs 'n' Bibs, Hyde Park Produce, or any of the places that are reportedly pretty good but which I never went to for some reason.
What am I, Dear Abby? You're allowed to say "Hi," to chat, and to ask if she'd like to get some coffee or go see a movie or something. If it works out, great, you've made a friend or possible romantic prospect; on the other hand, if you get the sense that she doesn't want to chat, you drop back to a smile and a nod. (Which, you know, Clarence Thomas's error. If not everyone in the workplace is into the Long Dong Silver conversation, that's when you're responsible for dropping the subject.)
as Tia says, assuming that you're behaving in a reasonable and polite fashion, and cheerfully take 'no' for an an answer, you aren't doing anything wrong,
Sort of. This kind of varies with the woman's generally perceived attractiveness. There are women who get hit on relentlessly, by nice guys asking only once, because they have a certain look (really attractive and approachable). I know a female secretary who had to be moved to an interior office because too many of the men were coming by to chat her up. She couldn't get any work done. (FTR: I was not one of the guys. Well, not after her first day.)
I'm actually already seeing someone, who incidentally lives right behind the plaza where the liquor store is. I'd say that the "safe zone" is considered to be between 60th and 51st, with some level of doubt the further north you go. Some guy got shot a few weeks ago at 54th and Woodlawn.
Rajun Cajun is quite good. There's lots of stuff on 53rd, and on 51st. I used to live on 54th & Ingleside, and only got shot twice, and in non-lethal areas.
Plus, all the fancy high rises are on 51st. I call shenanigans.
Is Mr. G's still there on 53d? That was an oddly good little grocery store -- looked shabby, but every time I needed something arcane, it was in stock.
Rajun Cajun is a ridiculous concept, even though it is quite good -- Indian food and Southern food, under one roof? I like the "Asian restaurant corridor" on 55th, too -- like two Korean restaurants and three Thai places.
What's that Mexican place that's on the lower level of the Harper plaza? I was told that that's the best Mexican in Hyde Park, and if that's so, then they frankly need some new Mexican restaurants.
Btw, my market research reveals that Mexican is the fastest-growing fast food format. If you're part of a private equity group, I'd recommend buying up some chain. Perhaps "Pepe's (Wonderful Mexican Food)."
Mr. G's is the coop location in the plaza with Kimball Liquors, the new Nile, Harold's, etc.
Not only does HP need better Mexican restaurants, they need a better way to get to Pilsen. Taking the 55 to Ashland, then the Ashland bus north, is not necessarily a good way, unless you luck out on the bus.
I'm pretty sure it's the only mexican place in hyde park, or the only place you can get a burrito. Some sort of female name with an L. Not Leona's. I have failed.
I'm with Ogged. I'm a huge fan of public transit but in the six years I've lived in NYC/DC, I've never taken the bus. Subways are more reassuring – there's a track so obviously you're at the right place. One has to come along sooner or later. Buses seem more...I don't know...magical? Like if you stand on a corner and wish really hard, maybe one will come by. Or maybe one won't.
I'm not Dear Abby either, but I'm gonna speak up again.
First - read Chapter two of my book! There are ways to tell before you speak, and if you get the "do not bother' vibe then DON'T BOTHER them. Pay attention to the signals. Most women who don't want to be approached (because they are married or HOT or who knows the reason) are able to make that VERY clear before you even speak, so honor their request.
Second, is it okay to ask out someone who is dating? Yes! I've asked many women if they were dating someone else when their (future) husband asked them out and they've said "yes." If they are dating a friend or family member - no good, otherwise okay. Obviously married people are verboten.
Third - Dating someone from work - the plus is that there is plenty of time to get the vibe and check the signals. The big minus is that if things go wrong they can go VERY wrong. Personally I never did it.
I would say that anyone whose dating a family member is someone you probably don't want to get involved with. ("So, Jocasta... do people call you Jo? Anyway, I was wondering what you were doing Friday...")
There are ways to tell before you speak, and if you get the "do not bother' vibe then DON'T BOTHER them. Pay attention to the signals. Most women who don't want to be approached (because they are married or HOT or who knows the reason) are able to make that VERY clear before you even speak, so honor their request.
Eh... it's not that you're wrong, but chatting someone up who doesn't want to be talked to isn't a major offense, and I don't think the "If you can't confidently read people's non-verbal signals before speaking to them, you don't deserve to make contact with new people," approach is productive for people who aren't already confident. Yes, you shouldn't try to socialize with someone who is hiding behind furniture to get away from you, but if you're uncertain, you're allowed to say "Hi."
The corolloary to 245 and 246 is, if their datee isn't a friend of theirs by now, you probably don't want to get involved with them -- love-hate relationships aren't as much fun as they sound.
243 -- When I lived near Columbia, before I figured out how to use the bus, one time I took the 1 train down to 42nd, the Shuttle to Grand Central, and the 6 train up to my destination (forgetting where now but I think it was probably Hunter College).
She is... a writer, so the writing... is vivid and engaging
This does not seem like valid reasoning to me. "She is a writer" does not imply "She is a good writer". Sounds like a fun book though.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 7:16 AM
I haven't turned down a date for over seven years. I don't see what the big deal is.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 8:23 AM
Yes but Emerson, have you ever refused a blowjob to a homeless French millionaire who thinks he's Jerry Lee Lewis? Get back to me when you have.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 8:29 AM
Have you been asked on a date in the last seven years?
Posted by chris | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 8:41 AM
She is... a writer, so the writing... is vivid and engaging
This does not seem like valid reasoning to me. "She is a writer" does not imply "She is a good writer". Sounds like a fun book though.
It seems that ogged's reasoning might be, This is not merely an interesting story by a random nonwriter who decided to go on 150 dates in one year, but is, incidently, an interesting story that happened to a writer -- which is lucky for us.
Also, by "writer," ogged probably has in mind "good writer," not "someone who is published."
Posted by Sam K | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:07 AM
Presumably, we have had this conversation before, but is there no fix for your line breaks killing all html tags?
Posted by Sam K | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:11 AM
The editorial review on Amazon describes this as "sheer chick fluff." Sounds like something ogged might like.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:13 AM
Chefs licker huff. Sounds like something Ogged might like.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:18 AM
Urple, don't be a dick. You know that ogged hasn't had any chyck's fluff in quite a while.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:25 AM
Chris, my book would be a short one.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:29 AM
I might try this myself, and write my own "Year of Yes" book. Except instead of saying "yes" to everyone who asks me for a date (which would be a short book), I'm just going to spend a year asking everyone I want on a date and then absolutely refusing to take "no" for an answer.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:47 AM
okay, this isn't chick lit (sorry guys, i know you are disappointed), but : do any of you read the Institute for the Future of the Book blog? they have a poor title but are interested in intersections of technology, cultural studies,and literary culture; i'd bet a lot of you would like reading it. just look
here.
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:49 AM
The Year of "'No' really means 'Yes'"?
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:49 AM
Josh Micah Marshall has said what I was trying to say about Iran.
But for those of us trying to think through how to deal with this situation, we have to start from the premise that there is no Iran Question, or whatever you want to call it. There's only how to deal with Iran with this administration in place.
Do you trust this White House's good faith, priorities or competence in dealing with this situation?
Based on everything I've seen in almost five years the answer is pretty clearly 'no' on each count. To my thinking that has to be the starting point of the discussion."
OT here, but the Iran threat thread has been overwhelmed by terrorists using American football chat as cover -- there are probably some coded messages in there.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 10:19 AM
OT here
You're an offensive tackle, John?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 10:23 AM
My own opinion is here.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 10:26 AM
Wait OT = offensive tackle = football chat = coded messages. So OT probably means "original terrorist."
(I agree about Iran, pretty much, although the potshot Drum took at Niall Ferguson gives me some hope he at least won't be Charlie Browned.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 10:45 AM
She is, after all, a writer, so the writing, though a bit precious, is vivid and engaging....>
The implied contrast is with Bill Wyman, who wrote a boring book about the year he spent screing everything that walked.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 11:39 AM
One of you guys needs to spend a year striking up conversations with every woman you meet--homeless women, baristas, waitresses, whoever--and then asking out anyone who seems friendly. Then write a book about it.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 11:50 AM
From the Amazon page:
I guess it is the dating equivalent of porn: pizza guy shows up, asks her out, she says yes, etc.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 11:54 AM
Bphd: no one wants to read a book about me sitting at home on the couch alone.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 11:55 AM
bphd, my instinct is that this would run aground on different gender roles. Maria Davahna Headley (sp?) didn't have to date anyone who hadn't already shown interest. Whereas, guy who asks out every woman who seems friendly, that just says to me "Total skeeze or desperado who will piss a lot of women off."
You'd probably have to rule out store clerks, waitresses, etc. who may be required by company policy to be friendly (I think I've seen that some employees complain that mandatory-smile policies encourage male customers to think they're flirting.)
But the skeeze factor has come up before, and ogged's howling women friends might not mind it so much. So, ogged should definitely do this.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 12:17 PM
Matt, I think it would, too--which is why it would be interesting, right? And you'd have to be careful about the whole store clerk thing for sure; kind of the inverse of Headley's "be friendly to everyone" approach.
I only commented b/c ever since Ogged mentioned the book, I've been fascinated by thinking about how it would be basically impossible for a guy to write it, and trying to think of how to get around that....
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 12:26 PM
I mean, men don't get asked out, but obviously this "fear of making conversation with women" thing is a big deal. Is it just a fear of making conversation with attractive women? And then wouldn't part of the interest of the book lie in figuring out whether or not, in fact, women-in-general/attractive-women/young-women etc., do view men talking to them as threatening, and under what circumstances?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 12:29 PM
for a straight guy to write it
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 12:29 PM
Hasn't this book been written?
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 12:35 PM
b,
i think part of it is that men are afraid of being seen as sketchy and/or afraid of rejection. Not every guy wants to be known as the guy who asks everyone out. Plus, on the whole this seems like a rather stupid book. What happens when you meet someone you actually like when you strike up a conversation with that hot chick at the library or wherever? Do you ignore it for the sake of your book?
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 12:36 PM
chick = girl. please excuse my slip right there. thanks.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 12:36 PM
BPhD:
There are tons of books by men who do this. They're normally called something like, "How to Score with Tons of Chicks," or "Get Laid All the Time." (Or even The Complete Asshole's Guide to Handling Chicks and The System: How to Get Laid Today!.) Saturation bombing is a pretty well-known technique.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 12:39 PM
Cross post with 26.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 12:41 PM
This is probably why 40 days and 40 nights was such a hit. Because no man, IRL, goes 40 days without sex.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 12:42 PM
Because no man, IRL, goes 40 days without sex.
Preach it, tweedle!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 12:46 PM
29: I've known a couple of guys like that (one or two in college, a college friend of Mr. Breath's) and they aren't necessarily assholes, they just have no fear of rejection. Making a pass at every woman you meet only gets you anywhere one time in twenty or so; but if you're really indiscriminate, it's not impossible to find twenty women to make a pass at in a fairly short period of time.
I think the only reason you couldn't write a book like this from the male perspective is the double standard -- while a woman dating indiscriminately comes off as sort of wacky, kind, and open, a guy trying to do something similar would look either pathetic (if he couldn't get the hang of simply approaching enough women) or cruel (dating a lot of women he had no interest in.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 12:56 PM
No, I don't mean "How to score with hot chicks." I mean, an honest sort of memorish thing. Obviously the fear of rejection would be huge, which raises the question: why don't women normally say yes to everyone who asks? I'd say it's partly fear--but of what? I mean, I'm not consciously afraid that if I go on a date with the guy at the autoshop, he's going to rape me, but it makes me uncomfortable when he asks. So obviously part of the appeal of The Year of Yes is her conscious decision to suspend that problem. I really wonder what would happen if a guy tried to consciously suspend his selection criteria and his fear of rejection....
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:00 PM
29: Or Seduce and Destroy. But I think Bphd is imagining something where the man is not just trying to score lots of chix, but actually dating -- like the Year of Yes woman.
ac's link is more like that, esp. because that guy is all about being sensitive unlike the asshole's guides, but it still seems different from a Year of Asking Out Absolutely Everyone.
But 27 presents a problem.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:01 PM
I don't mean "How to score with hot chicks."
I think Bphd is imagining something where the man is not just trying to score lots of chix
Yeah boy. Any more questions about what women are thinking, just direct them here. (Right now they're thinking, "Guys who brag about knowing what women are thinking are losers.")
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:04 PM
What happens when you meet someone you actually like when you strike up a conversation with that hot chick at the library or wherever?
I wondered that with this book, too; presumably it's discussed at one point, but what if she met a nice guy early on? Does she stand him up for her next random date, or?
I think a book like this could work from the male perspective. There's a few out there, but they seem to concentrate on 'scoring'. But if someone were to write a book explaining how he decided to ignore his usual dating rules, or someone shy explaining how he decided he was tired of sitting at the bar whining, there'd probably be a market for that.
It wouldn't have the so-called shock value; women generally don't ask men out nearly as often, so part of the fun of The Year of Yes I imagine is the take-charge, see-what-happens aspect of her dating project.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:05 PM
I think it would be cool to embark on a project of just asking out every guy that I find remotely intriguing, and see what happens with that.
I don't think this book premise sounds that great. How "take charge" is it really to just say yes to everyone? You're still sitting there until people ask you out.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:16 PM
Isn't this simply an 'I used to be shy but then I opened up' story? If so, aren't they a dime a dozen?
Or is this the precise time at which one could take out the old chestnut, polish it up, and make a killing?
I'm asking because I could tell that story. I've lived it. Since I'm currently in a commited relationship I can't recreate it though.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:16 PM
so part of the fun of The Year of Yes I imagine is the take-charge, see-what-happens aspect of her dating project.
Shouldn't this rather read: be indiscriminate, see what happens?
Posted by ogmb | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:16 PM
Mmm. I'm not sure I buy the distinction the B and Weiner are drawing. I think both are implicitly mis-describing the way the dating scene is structured. I think there is a much stronger presumption that women who agree to a date are not going to want to go to bed with you than that men who ask a woman out are not going to go to bed with you. That matters, though I can't quite say why.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:18 PM
someone shy explaining how he decided he was tired of sitting at the bar whining
If you've made it to a bar and are talking to someone, you aren't really that shy.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:21 PM
But if someone were to write a book explaining how he decided to ignore his usual dating rules, or someone shy explaining how he decided he was tired of sitting at the bar whining, there'd probably be a market for that.
I think you'd still have a gender-role problem that would make the guy look like a bastard. The problem is that in the standard 50's dating story, by asking a woman out, a guy is affirming that he is genuinely into her. For a guy to date women he isn't actually into, indiscriminately, makes him look like a heartless bastard should one of the women decide that she's into him: she's been tricked into exposing herself to rejection. (Come to think of it, I bet this has something to do with the "is this a 'date', or are we just hanging out?" problem.)
I don't think this is fair, particularly, but it would look bad.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:21 PM
I think there is a much stronger presumption that women who agree to a date are not going to want to go to bed with you than that men who ask a woman out are not going to go to bed with you. That matters, though I can't quite say why.
That's because ovaries are generally considered the scarce resource in mating markets.
Posted by ogmb | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:21 PM
Yeah, I mixed up what I was going to say.
Whatever.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:21 PM
Does she say whether she tells the guys about the book?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:22 PM
There wasn't a book at the time. She says she did this when she was 20 or 21 and sick of dating NPR-listening nerdy types, and wrote the book later when people said "That would be a great book."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:26 PM
For a guy to date women he isn't actually into, indiscriminately, makes him look like a heartless bastard should one of the women decide that she's into him: she's been tricked into exposing herself to rejection.
It wouldn't work the same way, since you're right, there's a perception that women will date anyone who asks them and isn't outright repulsive, but men only ask out women they really want to sleep with, but that might be the selling point for a book. The writer could bill it as seeing what it was like to date like a woman, taking chances on people not immediately attractive, etc.
I dunno.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:27 PM
My 43 is addressing the same thing as Tim's 41 -- a woman who accepts an offer of a date hasn't made any further committment. A guy who asks a woman out has (again, in the 50's dating story -- I'm not saying this is a good rule) implicitly promised to take matters as much further as she wants to go.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:27 PM
So, to truly have a counterpart book, some guy who felt that his criteria weren't working for him would have to embark on this in order to shake up his dating strategies. In an authentic effort to find love. Then later he could use his notes to write a heartwarming book in which he reveals....
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:32 PM
that true love was there the whole time.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:33 PM
Pretty much, Weiner.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:34 PM
With a signed permission slip from BPhd explaining that I am not a skeezy guy, but am a strong feminist male trying to redefine masculinity, maybe I'd be willing to do the experiment. The tricky part would be getting the experimental subject sign the legal release.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:36 PM
50/51 following on 47, just because I'm an asshole.
there's a perception that women will date anyone who asks them and isn't outright repulsive
Is this true? I thought the perception was that men are much more indiscriminate at asking people out and women had to perfect their brush-off techniques. Though perhaps the perception is that this is so because men are perceived to want to sleep with anything in a skirt, anyway.
That said it does seem as though initiating contact might commit the man to more than saying "OK" commits the woman to. Still, some guy somewhere has probably developed a graceful "Let's just be friends" speech.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:39 PM
Maybe you should make that a double-blind placebo test, John. It would put the whole "is this a date or hanging out?" thing on a whole new level.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:42 PM
BitchPhD says
"which raises the question: why don't women normally say yes to everyone who asks? I'd say it's partly fear--but of what? I mean, I'm not consciously afraid that if I go on a date with the guy at the autoshop, he's going to rape me, but it makes me uncomfortable when he asks. "
Dare I say that it is exactly the same thing you constantly berate men about --- you don't like their look?
Their "look" includes physical appearance, of course, but also the extent to which they look intellectual or otherwise, wealthy or otherwise, and so on.
I have no idea what your type is, but I suspect that if this strange man who asked you out matched your type --- had the right physical appearance and the accessories that implied the right level of education and wealth --- your reluctance would be rather less.
Posted by Maynard Handley | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:44 PM
You're right and she's wrong, Weiner. There is no such presumption.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:44 PM
27,37: re what happens when the people doing this fall in love, the "girl agrees to [dare/bet/plan] with friend to date acceptably large number of boys and falls in love with one of the earlier dates" is a pretty standard plot of romance writing aimed at pre-teens (almost all romances starring teens is actually aimed at 10-12 year olds).
The acceptably large number in question seems to be about 10, and typically one is meant to fall in love with number 3. One's sense of pride should keep one in the game, possibly secretly, until about number 7 while one realises the full extent of one's passion for number 3 and also all but destroys the changes of seeing him again, thus providing us with the second half of the book.
So I can only assume that people who do this kind of thing are unusually hard hearted. Or that number 3 really likes a good story at the expense of his fellows.
Posted by Mary | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:44 PM
The project made me think of some lines from a Rachel Cusk novel:
It had stayed in my mind as something that all women think about.Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:45 PM
Is that Saving Agnes?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:48 PM
Yes.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:49 PM
I think the reason most women don't say yes to anyone who asks is because of an implicit judgment that gets made of the very fact that they asked. It's different when the person asking is someone you sort of vaguely know, or at least have seen around on more than one occasion, but I at least am wary of someone who's hitting on me the very first time they see me (especially outside of, say, drunken bar context), and think they are either
a) desperate
b) indiscriminate (i'm moderately attractive, but not enough so that I feel some sort oh "oh my god I've got to talk to that girl" sentiment is at play)
c) fixated on Titty
So maybe it's the case of "wouldn't want to be part of a club that would have me as a member" sort of thing. I guess I personally prefer to pursue men rather than have them pursue me. Then again, I don't pursue shit. So, fat lot of goo it does me.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:52 PM
fat lot of goo it does me
hah.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:54 PM
56: no no, Bitch PhD raised a really interesting question, and it's not just that she's thinking of men who aren't her type, Maynard. (that is, not to read your mind, bphd, but i get the feeling and i bet most women get that little moment of "squeeve? what?")
what does that moment consist of?
a. yes, some generalized vague fear/awareness alert, you're right...
b. the surprise of having to switch how you're looking at someone, since i consider far fewer aspects of the human-ness & personhood of an acquaintance vs. a person i might date
c. some discomfort with suddenly being sexualized, or being openly seen as sexual. some surprise even, a feeling of "so, how am i being looked at here?"
d. just the discomfort of knowing someone wants something from you. and it's not clear what the thing they want is, but they certainly want to be dealt with in a personal way
and then the [huh? squeeve?] moment passes, and maybe even one goes on to be thrilled and accept, or whatever, but there is definitely that quick little gut-instinct "?!" moment first.
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:55 PM
I am not being clear, but here's what I think the perception is.
Women are more likely to accept a date with someone they are not definitively attracted to just to 'see how it goes', but men rarely ask out women just to see what happens.
e.g. Woman (to a girlfriend): He's not really my type, physically, but he seems sweet enough, and who knows? It could be fun.
Man (to a different friend): I'm not really attracted to her, physically, but I figure we might have a good time, so I asked her out.
I think the Woman is more likely to look like she's fun and open-minded, where the Man is probably looking a bit sleazy (I'll fuck anything that moves) or desperate (I don't like her much, but I'm really lonnnely.).
And I think this stems from the perception that women are less discriminating in their preferences in physical beauty.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 1:56 PM
I "constantly berate" men? Come on.
Having said that, yes, of course my sense that I won't date the auto shop guy is partly classist. It's also, though, partly about social norms exclusive of class (sort of): that is, one doesn't accept invitations from complete strangers, and the kind of guy who will ask out a woman he has just meant is violating that rule. I think that women learn to treat even minor violations of social rules w/r/t dating as potentially threatening (rape culture and all that), so it makes sense that, in that context, one would be wary of men one doesn't have some connection to (a mutual friend, work in the same industry, whatever).
But of course, what's interesting about the Year of Yes book is that we know, in fact, that the vast majority of men are not stalkers/rapists/serial killers, and that the problem of meeting people who aren't in one's immediate social circle is a real one. It's therefore an interesting experiment. I suppose the real reason I'm interested in a guy's side of this is that I'm assuming that, for men, the worry about "I don't know anything about this person" is less--but that because men are supposed to play the role of the person who asks, that other kinds of selection criteria come into play.
(Btw, don't forget that I'm the woman who dated guys I met in internet chat rooms, sight unseen, for a summer. And who fell in love with one of 'em. In that case, of course, my selection criteria was "can write.")
#36: Well, when the guy is interpreting something the woman has, in fact, actually said, I don't think it's quite the presumption you're fearing ;)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 2:05 PM
Perception? I'd say reality. I've been dating up my entire life.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 2:06 PM
67 to 65
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 2:08 PM
67: Oddly, that's been my experience, too; looking at most of my married/coupled friends, in general, the woman is more conventionally physically attractive.
It pretty much is 'women pretty, guy is carrying an extra 10% body weight. She still is attracted to him.' I can't think of a couple I know where the guy is mr. washboard abs and the girl is pleasantly plump.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 2:11 PM
69: That's actually not infrequently the case in black and hispanic couples.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 2:17 PM
#36: Well, when the guy is interpreting something the woman has, in fact, actually said, I don't think it's quite the presumption you're fearing ;)
I hadn't seen your 35 when I wrote my 36.* I admit that this would have been funnier if 36 posted before 35.** I blame the patriarchy.
*Wolfson wouldn't send me the picture.
**dthat[36] before dthat[35], for you philosophy of language geeks.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 2:20 PM
B's hypothetical male could just move to Sweden.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 2:34 PM
#70, Jamie Foxx has a penchant for larger girlfriends, and in his Barbara Walters interview, said of one of them that when they walked down the street together they resembled the number 10.
Posted by ming | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 2:34 PM
, in general, the woman is more conventionally physically attractive
Per Handley, the question is, does this remain true even when you control (for example) for differential income expectations of the man and the woman?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 2:46 PM
69: That's actually not infrequently the case in black and hispanic couples.
Yikes, I'm having trouble passing this through my parser.
But geez Louise, is there still somebody surprised that men care more about looks when selecting a date than women do? I thought this was a commonly known fact.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 2:58 PM
So are we saying that (white) unattached men are on average better-looking than (white) unattached women? That seems to be where we're going if we think that in (white) couples the woman is usually better-looking than the man, unless we just want to say women are better-looking than men in general.
My point being, this sounds pretty anecdotal, and if we're being anecdotal I have some hott Maureen Dowd pictures to prove that the good-looking women are not all getting hoovered up.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 3:04 PM
Women are generally better looking than men, both because they put more effort into it and because we're conditioned to associate women with teh sex. Also, I don't necessarily think the dating dynamic is so different in black and hispanic couples and b+h menfolk are more open-minded; the operative variable is what's considered attractive in women.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 3:12 PM
Once you're past menopause, I don't think you're officially a woman. (Ducks.)
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 3:13 PM
Notice my interesting choice of pronouns in the last comment. Maybe I am really a 47 year old balding man.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 3:14 PM
Matt,
Wow, if I could make a leap that great I'd win the next Olympics!
And the reason Maureen is not 'hooked up' is not her looks. Her looks are fine. It is something else.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 3:14 PM
(78 was to 76, and regarded Dowd, obviously. And also a joke. Obviously.)
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 3:16 PM
Tia,
In general (yes, yes, we can all cite exceptions thank you very much) women look better because that is what men want and men earn more money because that is what women want and BOTH men and women want to be attractive to the opposite sex.
That is how we got to the top of the food chain. It may be good or it may be bad but it is a fact.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 3:20 PM
I thought we got to the top of the food chain by killing the dinosaurs.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 3:21 PM
#77: What Tia said. Women look better than their male partners because women spend more time and money on how they look than men do. Mostly.
#75: The question re. who cares more about looks is does that have anything to do with who is supposed to be in charge of making the initial selection? I think it's really weird that we seem to be the one animal species where it's the women, rather than the guys, who are supposed to use looks to attract a mate. And I have a strong suspicion that this has to do with the fact that looks = status (for women) while for men, it's other things (including how good the guy's woman looks) that = status.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 3:24 PM
#82: Again, *why* do people want this? Presumably a big reason women want men with money is that men have more economic power than women do; if this weren't the case, it wouldn't matter nearly so much (and I suspect that more and more, as women succeed in the professions, that we care about this a lot less). And I really think the reason guys want women who look good is that good looking women reflect status on the man.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 3:26 PM
85: I think that may have been in jest.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 3:39 PM
Maybe I am really a 47 year old balding man.
Hence the secret weiner.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 3:53 PM
Fair enough. I've been pretending to be Harry Potter all day, along with cooking and prepping for tomorrow's class, and my brain may not be functioning so well by this point....
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 3:53 PM
And I really think the reason guys want women who look good is that good looking women reflect status on the man.
I'm reasonably confident that the reason I want a woman who looks good is because I like fucking good-looking women. And I'm reasonably confident that the status having a good looking woman bestows on me is secondary: most men like fucking good-looking women, so I have something they desire and want to emulate, which is the basic foundation of status.
This seems pretty straightforward to me.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 3:53 PM
A lot of guys who are really into sex per se aren't so much into good looks. ("If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, make an ugly woman your wife".) For one thing, sex is more tactile and looks are more visual. But if people see you with a hott woman, you score points even if she's no fun at all.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 4:01 PM
Also, I don't necessarily think the dating dynamic is so different in black and hispanic couples and b+h menfolk are more open-minded; the operative variable is what's considered attractive in women.
Yes, exactly.
#75: The question re. who cares more about looks is does that have anything to do with who is supposed to be in charge of making the initial selection?
Yup, that was my point. It's easier to tell quickly whether one finds someone physically attractive or not than it is to determine if they have a good sense of humor, or make enough money, or how they treat other people. (Blah, blah, in terms of hey, I just met you, want to go for coffee?)
If women have been conditioned to expect that money/humor/treatment are what drives 'attractiveness' in men, it would make sense that they'd accept dates with less than desirable physical specimens, because you'll need to go on the date to gauge what is considered important.
A guy who does the same thing (LB's point way back when) will seem insincere, because the expectation is that if he goes to the trouble to arrange a date, he's already attracted.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 4:07 PM
A lot of guys who are really into sex per se aren't so much into good looks.
I'd like to see your evidence for this. The only (ancedotal) evidence I'm aware of suggests exactly the opposite -- guys who are really just into sex are purely more concerned about good looks than anything else.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 4:09 PM
My evidence that looks = status is that you rarely see wealthy men dating women who are very attractive but not expensively groomed. And that we tend to think "expensively groomed" = "pretty." Which it obviously doesn't.
I don't think anyone really has to think very hard to come up with examples of extremely attractive, but mousy/shy/unfemmey women who seem to get dates very rarely. Or alternate examples of women who are perfectly okay looking, but in fact not especially gorgeous, who nonetheless get a lot of attention because they have nice hair, clothes, and makeup.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 4:14 PM
Of course looks equal status, but you seemed to be saying, b, that men want good-looking women primarily because of status, whereas it seems pretty clear to me (and Urple), that status is secondary to just finding good looks pleasing.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 4:17 PM
92: Jude Law. Obviously he's really into sex. His public girlfriend is very conventionally pretty in a spectacularly unspecial way, i.e., great for status; his private tastes, at least in one publicized incident, apparently run cute-ish, curvy, not so conventionally pretty.
Also, Tomas in The Unbearable Lightness of Being, who became a "curiousity collector" in his womanizing. Picking fictional characters is perhaps cheating, but I think that book was pretty consistently true.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 4:22 PM
Status is presumably secondary to finding good looks pleasing on a conscious level, obviously.
But I still maintain that if you pay attention to who the rich guys are dating, you'll discover that a lot of the women aren't especially attractive (but are expensively groomed, so they look like they're attractive in a superficial way). And if you look around at who the non-rich guys are dating, you'll find a number of very pretty women whose attractiveness doesn't get a lot of attention because they're not playing it up.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 4:28 PM
I think the mistake here is pretending that there is some always existing rootedness to any of the status signifiers. For men, money is status, and it helps attract women. There are some obvious reasons for considering money important, but that's not necessarily the only reason people value it. For women, looks are status, and it helps attract men. Again, there are obvious reasons for looks to be highly valued, but I don't think the obvious ones are the only ones.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 4:29 PM
Am I the only person here who has ever had a young man confess, in confidence, that he really liked some girl but wasn't sure about getting together with her because his friends didn't think she was hot?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 4:36 PM
Am I the only person here who has ever had a young man confess, in confidence, that he really liked some girl but wasn't sure about getting together with her because his friends didn't think she was hot?
I've never heard anything like that, and I'd be shocked to hear it from anyone I know. That's just stupid.
if you pay attention to who the rich guys are dating, you'll discover that a lot of the women aren't especially attractive (but are expensively groomed, so they look like they're attractive in a superficial way)
There are a lot of variables at work here, though. It depends when the guy became rich, for one thing. Maybe he wasn't rich when they married, but now that they're rich, she spends a lot of her time tending to herself in the ways that make people look plastic and gross. Maybe she was actually hot when she was younger, but since most really rich people are older, you don't think of the hot ones as also being rich. Probably some other permutations too. But now I'm finally going to see Brokeback Mountain.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 4:41 PM
Am I the only person here who has ever had a young man confess, in confidence, that he really liked some girl but wasn't sure about getting together with her because his friends didn't think she was hot?
I've never heard anyone say this, and I have trouble even imagining it being said by anyone over the age of 14.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 4:44 PM
I've heard guys say it more than once.
Evidence that people who are primarily interested in sex care less about looks: swingers. The bdsm crowd. Street prostitution.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 4:48 PM
I didn't see it but IIRC Neil LaBute's play Fat Pig (recently Off-Broadway, playing now in D.C.) was supposed to be about just that.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 4:48 PM
Right. Plus, the fact that "fat" women were considered teh hott just fifty years ago, and now it's the slim muscular ones. Obviously that isn't just some kind of natural expression of men's interest in good-looking women, since the definition of what's good-looking changes fairly dramatically over time.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 4:50 PM
103: Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with you globally, b, but I don't think that's a clear cut argument for the status case; men could just be conditioned to have different tastes now, but with aesthetics still as the primary operator.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 4:58 PM
Evidence that people who are primarily interested in sex care less about looks: swingers. The bdsm crowd. Street prostitution
I am not sure these are cases that represent the mainstream of male sexual desire, or even men primarily interested in sex. Rather, they represent freakish outliers who are either desperate, kinky, or have made sex the focus of their life in some unsual way. (Not that there's anything wrong with that! Ok, so I think there is, but a discussion for another time)
To generalize, in men the connection between visual stimulation and sexual desire is very, very tight. For most men, *just seeing* a woman of surpassing attractiveness in skimpy attire initiates sexual ideation/drool response in a way that a perfectly presentable woman does not. Now, it may be that the description of beauty that trips this switch is (dark chords) socially constructed, but the response, not so much, I suspect.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 5:12 PM
B and I must know different kinds of guys than the rest of you.
I don't think that there are any guys who would brag about being concerned with how good their girlfriend looks to others. It's more a confession, and seriously guys, no one is going to confess anything to ogged.
One example would be after a couple breaks up and the guy confesses that his hott partner had been frigid or otherwise not fun. He wouldn't do that in the middle of the relationship, and afterwards it would be in the context of complaining about her, rather confessing to superficiality.
The dialogue ogged reported a few days ago by a guy complaining about his trophy wife would be an example too.
Guys who are into scoring a lot might not be especially into sex. Just lots of wham / bam quickies.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 5:13 PM
Some of the guys I'm thinking of were black, and it may be anecdotal but I'm convinced that black guys have different standards of beauty. White women I've known with big butts verified the stereotype too.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 5:16 PM
BAA, you're cherry-picking the evidence.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 5:17 PM
Another way to put it is to say that if ogged were more into sex and less into looks his Tivo would have been reset long ago.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 5:18 PM
I'm going to see Fat Pig this weekend, I've heard good things about it.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 5:48 PM
109: I bow to no one in my ogged-mocking, but I don't think it's fair to say that he's too interested in looks. That can't account for this. We've seen pictures.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 5:50 PM
The guys I know set there Tivos more than daily if they're able to. That's what I was talking about.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 5:56 PM
Why the argument that, if men respond to (female) attractiveness, attractiveness is not therefore a manifestation of status? Does everyone agree on what "attractive" is, in all places and all periods? Obviously not. So therefore not only must it change, but it must change according to *some criteria that are socially meaningful in an other than biological sense*? Aren't we fairly comfortable with the recognition that an aesthetic sense in *all other areas* is, among other things, an expression of social status?
Plus, we all seem pretty okay with the idea that women go for guys with social status (expressed in various ways). Are men, like, a different species?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 6:02 PM
Guys who are into scoring a lot might not be especially into sex.
IM(limited)E, this tends to be true. The times I've slept with high-social-status/successful-player type guys, the sex has been somewhat perfunctory.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 6:19 PM
Us low-status guys are not cool with that, B, but who cares what we think?
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 6:28 PM
I've got to side with B and Gandolf here. I haven't had friends admit they worried about what others thought of their potential girlfriend, but a couple have all but admitted that to me. There is some sort of system of meaning in place, and people worry about what it means if they make an unconventional, downscale choice. It isn't like this is limited to dating or anything; it's just not excepted from dating.
What I don't get is what people seem to be seeing anew here. Is there some conclusion y'all are drawing from this? People respond to incentives; many incentives are social constructions. Is there something more here?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 6:34 PM
I think Bphd was saying that we are okay with accepting that that is the truth, not that it should be the truth. (And, as mentioned in 36, I have mad insight into the feminine mind.)
I would now like to totally disprove that parenthetical by raising some questions about the whole "If a man asks a woman out he is obliged to be expressing sexual interest in her" thing. How big a foul is it not to press things at the end of a date? I've heard different stories from different female friends. Though the stories weren't quite contradictory: one said "If a guy didn't kiss me at the end of the [first/second? can't remember] date, I would feel like shit," and the other said "I wish you hadn't kissed me at the end of the second date."
Perhaps our hypothetical author could chat up anyone who seems friendly, and ask some of them out to low-pressure situations, like coffee dates?
Posted by Ttam R. | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 6:42 PM
117 to 115. I hit "preview" and saw that SCMT had commented, thus making a number necessary; but on preview the numbers were invisible, thus making it impossible for me to tell which number was necessary. Tragedy!
Posted by Ttam R. | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 6:44 PM
I don't think anyone is saying status has no role in the appeal of attractive women, Bphd. Not me, at least. But I do think its wrong to think that male focus on female attractiveness is not merely, or in most cases largely, a focus on a high status.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 7:15 PM
In my universe, no kiss on the second date is the no kiss of death.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 7:19 PM
I have no idea what #119 is saying.
#117: Yes, exactly. I'm hardly *approving* of the idea that status matters. In fact, I disapprove. But it is true that people mostly pair up with others in their own social class, and I do think that status/class matters a lot *more* than the things we say matter, like looks, money, etc. Pretty Woman is total fiction.
Pressing things at the end of a date is *always* a mistake. Signals, people, signals.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 7:25 PM
Ok, try again. Men want to be with attractive women primarilty because they are attractive. Secondarily, perhaps, because being with an attractive woman increases their status. So, yes, the secondary motive exists, but no it isn't the primary motive.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 7:31 PM
Think there is an extra negative in 119, if that accounts for the confusion.
Are 120 and the last paragraph of 119 in tension, do people think?
And, if a man asks a woman out to some date-like situation, they have a quite nice conversation etc., and he doesn't kiss her, and doesn't try to get another date, is she crushed? Is he a cad? Postulate that she has the level of interest in him that would ordinarily be required for a man to ask a woman out.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 7:40 PM
Typo-corrector, corect thycelf! What I mean to ask is if 120 and the last paragraph of 121 are in tension:
In my universe, no kiss on the second date is the no kiss of death.
Pressing things at the end of a date is *always* a mistake. Signals, people, signals.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 7:43 PM
yes they are, but can be reconciled. No kiss on the second (or maybe first) date is probably hard to overcome. That said, you ought to know by the kissing time whether or not it will be well received. In which case, if not, B suggests to run out the clock and go into the locker room with a bit of your dignity intact.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 7:48 PM
as to 123, I don't think the guy in question can be a cad unless you would argue that the female in the above scenario is a cad for not desiring a kiss at the end of the date. The date is a trial period for both parties. Neither party is locked in for making out.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 7:52 PM
The date is a trial period for both parties.
That's how I think it ought to be; which means that a guy could embark on the chatting-up-any-woman-who-seems-friendly project without being cruel as per 33, 41, 43, etc.
The problem of skeeviness has not yet been solved.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 7:55 PM
I hadn't read all those posts. When I've been single, in recent years, I've tended to chat up a lot of women. That differs from my college strategy, which was to get blinding drunk and see who takes advantage of me. Although that method worked on occasion, I never really felt as though I'd "scored."
I see nothing wrong with talking to lots of women, though I'd hold off the whistling. And if going on dates and not kissing the girl afterwards makes you an asshole, then I'm one, although I think there's much better evidence for that elsewhere.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 8:07 PM
#117: Yes, exactly. I'm hardly *approving* of the idea that status matters.
I'm not sure what this means. Status here seems to be a placeholder for a whole series of other "good qualities." It might mean cash, or looks, or education, or religious faith, or ethnic background, or some combination of the above. Status matters more than looks because it includes looks, among other things, as a component. If you change the components, status will still matter. It will just be made up of other components.
I do think that status/class matters a lot *more* than the things we say matter, like looks, money, etc.
Ehh. If you look at status/class in bands, I'd bet people mate among neighboring bands with some frequency. Poor boy grows up, goes to college, and marries the rich girl? Heard it. Genders switched? Heard it.
Pretty Woman is a fantasy for lots and lots and lots of reasons; I don't think anyone is confused about that. I'm not actually sure how it relates.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 8:14 PM
The no kiss/cad thing depends on expectations and prior knowledge, no? On a genuine getting-to-know-you date, certainly there's no obligation to try to kiss someone at the end. But if you know in advance that the other person is hot for you, then you probably ought not go on the date if you don't feel the same way because you'll either not kiss her, and crush her soft little heart, or you will kiss her, and make the eventual breakup that much worse.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 8:15 PM
Pretty Woman totally happened. To wit: An old rich fellow, not bad looking, rented out a whore for a period of time. She wasn't like anyone he'd ever met before. But he didn't ask her to marry him.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 8:18 PM
In how many cases can it be said that you genuinely know the other person is hot for you? Even if you did, and were uncertain about your own feelings, would it be improper to go on a date to see how things went? Or, conversely, if you were hot for the person, but things went badly, or you changed your mind for some reason during the date, would that make you a cad?
What if you were hot for the other person, but confidence failed for some reason? Or there were some mitigating factor against making out? Are you still a cad?
If so, I think lots of us are cads. Lots of us probably are cads, but for better reasons than that.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 8:23 PM
While looking for something to link with the phrase "misty water-colored memories" in response to 130, I found this:
snort.
and oh dear:
But I actually think SCMT is right in the rest of that post:
It'll be rare, particularly if you're doing a year of chatting up any woman who seems friendly, that you'll know a woman is so into you that it'll break her tender heart if you don't kiss her at the end of the date. And in those circumstances, if you think you might be interested, you ought to find some way to audition her anyway; wouldn't she rather have a chance? So there won't be a lot of deliberate heartbreaking involved in such a project.
Also, this makes me feel less of a jerk for all the time I spend trying to egg Ogged into various dating schemes. So it's settled: Come spring when a young man's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love, Ogged starts his year of "hey, baby."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 8:31 PM
I've always known that I'm not attracted by looks so much as that smart sparkle in smart people's eyes.
Ha! Emerson pwned in 109!
Also, "unobjectionably earnest." And, of course, the first 100-comment thread.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 8:36 PM
I guess y'all should know that I reset the Tivo a while back and didn't tell you about it. Maybe if you'd been nicer to me, I would have shared. Suckas.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 8:48 PM
That's cool. Did you have sex, too?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 8:56 PM
Does anyone believe ogged? Show of hands?
Incidentally, I'm in the process of proving that I'm constitutionally incapable of doing a bad radio show, even with ~1 hour warning. I'm Dan Harmon and I shit gold.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 8:57 PM
OK, party's over.
(And that's nice.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 8:58 PM
137: I'm not sure, but it's certainly possible, and it's much better to act as though he meant it if he didn't than vice versa.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:00 PM
give it up! it's never too late to talk about resetting the tivo.
Posted by catherine | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:03 PM
Jesus, what will we talk about now?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:10 PM
I couldn't bring myself to tell you, since I knew it would feel like telling kids that there's no Santa Claus. Maybe Timbot can start a blog?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:14 PM
So what's she or he like?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:15 PM
Not squeaky? How'd you meet? Human, domesticated animal, or wild?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:16 PM
Working link to Ben's show. The Dan Harmon line also didn't make sense to me.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:17 PM
Wait, what? Really?
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:18 PM
Is it a good thing or a bad thing that my relentless teasing pushed Ogged into this revelation? I think it is bad that I can be so relentless.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:19 PM
I'm so confused!
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:20 PM
Jesus, what will we talk about now?
Don't bring me into this. It wasn't my miracle.
Funny that you're the one asking.
Posted by Jesus | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:20 PM
Fuck. So I"m plumbing the depths of technical virginity by myself? Ah, well...I'll think of it as exploring new vistas, boldly going where no man, etc.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:21 PM
What are you smoking, Cristone? The link I gave works.
Dan Harmon is associated with Channel 101. The line is from a post to the forums he made that was turned into a song for him in the third episode of Channel 101: The Musical.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:23 PM
SCMT, have you considered spending a year asking out every woman who seems friendly?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:26 PM
(Note that meditating on my character flaws doesn't get me to do anything about them.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:27 PM
Well, I am now.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:27 PM
So I'm plumbing the depths of technical virginity by myself?
Nothing left to do but start a blog.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:31 PM
My browser doesn't like your link without "stanford.edu" in between "zk." and "/index"—that Fluxus shit you listen to is getting to your head.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:32 PM
Ohhhhh. Right. That would explain that.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:34 PM
I feel so... listless and confused. Especially after this.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:48 PM
Yes, ogged has been foolin' us all. I wonder if his pseudonym is even "ogged".
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:54 PM
I bet it's his realonym.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 9:56 PM
My whole world is suddenly unstable.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 10:26 PM
I haven't changed, Ben. I will be your rock.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 10:48 PM
The business of guys resetting their Tivos several times a day wasn't meant as a model to live by, it was just a description of a guy who was primarily into sex, period -- with little attention to high standards, class, or looks. An ideal type only in a Weberian way.
I think that looks can be a marker for class or status to a certain extent, but a good-looking woman per se brings some status to here man, whereas it's mostly a guy's property and future that brings status to a woman. But as women have more rewarding careers, that could change and probably has.
Unsuccessful guys tend to hope that love will be this other pure realm where their lack of success isn't important, and an escape from this crass world, and lots of movies, etc., tell everyone that that's true, but really the world of love and marriage tends to be continuous with everything else.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 10:57 PM
I for one welcome our new tivo-reset-overlord.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 11:17 PM
...
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 01-16-06 11:56 PM
SCMT, have you considered spending a year asking out every woman who seems friendly?
And then he could write a book, The Year of Restraining Orders.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 6:42 AM
Yeah, that's the as-yet-unsolved skeeve problem for the hypothetical male counterpart of this book.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 6:49 AM
And then he could write a book, The Year of Restraining Orders.
LOL!
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 7:12 AM
I reset the Tivo a while back and didn't tell you about it.
No wonder the blog's been sucking lately. Ogged got wiggly with his drummer.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 7:47 AM
117, 123, etc.:
As (I think) the person who initially brought up the "guy, by asking a woman out, commits himself to showing any further level of interest that she is open to" idea, I want to reiterate that I don't think that this should be an obligation, or that a guy who has no further interest at the end of a date is doing anything wrong by backing off -- just that this expectation is out there, and might make our hypothetical serial dater look like a cad to readers of his hypothetical memoir.
166, 167, 168: Oh, come on. Guys really overestimate the amount of trouble you can get into by asking someone out, pleasantly, and taking no for an answer. (Correct answer: None.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 7:56 AM
I only meant that no kiss on the second date would clearly telegraph non-interest, and would not read as chivalrous, not that my feelings would be crushed.
Soon, Ogged, you too will be bad at math.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 8:02 AM
Bphd,
I've heard guys say it (I'd date an ugly girl if it wasn't for the peer pressure) more than once.
Those guys are just telling you what you want to hear. They are being PC to you and giving a rationale for what you and others think is their boorish behaviour.
It's not much different from women saying they don't really care about their man's money or status and then viola, more often than not ending up with a man who is tall and slighlty higher than them on the money ladder.
We say what we are expected to say but we usually do what we want to do and rationalize about it.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 8:53 AM
Guys really overestimate the amount of trouble you can get into by asking someone out, pleasantly, and taking no for an answer.
Really? See, my instinct has always been to think that people (um, women) would often be, like, "As if!" Or "If jerks like you keep asking for my number, I'm going to stop smiling on the street." That is why this book needs to be written. So guys can gain this valuable knowledge.
And I think that, if it were well presented that this was a way of getting past your own hangups and unsuccessful dating strategies (as it was for Headley), the author could avoid giving off the impression that he's a cad. Headley (apparently) didn't come across as always leading men on, and I think in our culture the harmful stereotype is much more that women lead men on than vice versa. At least, lead them on to some place short of sex (post-sex, I think it may be "stringing them along," or "dragging my heart around").
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 8:59 AM
Oh, come on. Guys really overestimate the amount of trouble you can get into by asking someone out, pleasantly, and taking no for an answer. (Correct answer: None.)
I agree, Lizardbreath, but I was also one of those guys (afraid to ask a girl out) years ago. It was not a rational fear but it was a very real fear. It took a certain amount of maturing on my part to get over it. My problem was that I was making way too much of a big deal out of asking someone out. Movies and such had told me that you ask the right person out, you fall in love, and you marry for life, which is a pretty big and unrealistic expectation to carry into a first date.
My sister and Mother explicitly told me to date more girls as friends but I recall responding "If I want to go out with friends I'll go out with my guy friends."
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:05 AM
I'm surprised that guys aren't strategizing how to get Year of Yes into the hands of as many women as possible so that they'll be primed for their invitations.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:09 AM
Matt,
I've often been tempted to write such a book. So far my efforts to impart my 'great' dating wisdom to my teen sons had been met with a stone wall.
My book would be essentially the following:
1. If 'being yourself' isn't working then change.
2. How to tell before saying a word if there is interest.
3. What a date is, and what a date is not.
4. Practice and repetition make it easier.
5. Traps and pitfalls.
A long time ago I read "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and I think my book would mostly be a modernization of that classic. Some things never really change much.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:11 AM
See, my instinct has always been to think that people (um, women) would often be, like, "As if!" Or "If jerks like you keep asking for my number, I'm going to stop smiling on the street."
Well, okay, both of these responses are well within the realm of possibility (harsh, but possible) -- neither, on the other hand, has anything to do with restraining orders. Rejection is certainly possible, and if you're asking women out indiscriminately, likely -- but being rejected, unpleasant though it is, doesn't count as getting into trouble.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:13 AM
neither, on the other hand, has anything to do with restraining orders
I believe that fell under the heading of comedically licensed hyperbole.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:15 AM
Tripp, "date more girls as friends" isn't exactly what I was thinking of. Never really had the problem of thinking that women would be put off if I tried to make Just Friends with them. I'm thinking, if you're at a bus stop or wherever, and you pass some innocuous remark about the weather to the woman next to you, and she responds pleasantly, and there's one more conversational turn, and the bus is coming, can you actually ask her for her number? Even if you don't see Year of Yes poking out of her backpack?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:15 AM
but being rejected, unpleasant though it is, doesn't count as getting into trouble.
I totally agree. This will sound way trite and artificial but has anyone else noticed how James Bond responds to rejection?
He says "Another time perhaps" and walks away.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:19 AM
Matt,
can you actually ask her for her number?
I can.
Can you? What is stopping you? The last time I checked politely asking for a number is not a crime.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:22 AM
I guess 177 answers the question. But there's also the problem of "what if you get that kind of rejection and then run into her in a social situation, wouldn't that be awkward?" Also, if being asked out by a random would really annoy a lot of women, one would not wish to cause needless pain. Still, this does not seem so insuperable; I think some guy needs to try this.
Before anyone gets personal I should link this.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:23 AM
This will sound way trite and artificial but has anyone else noticed how James Bond responds to rejection?
He says "Another time perhaps" and walks away.
A lot of us would've been a lot happier if we could have been so nonchalant about rejection (and thus more willing to risk it).
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:24 AM
their man's money or status and then viola
I hate it when money and status turn into stringed instruments.
Couldn't resist.
Weiner, whether she's going to think you're creepy or not is going to depend on the conversation (asking for a number after only saying how's the weather? a bit shady. asking for a number/low-key coffee date after an animated five-minute chat? maybe fun!) and well, whether you give off creepy vibes.
In either case, the worst thing that happens is that she says no and gives you a dirty look. She's unlikely to be so frightened or wary that she never smiles at men again (!)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:27 AM
Well, James Bond, besides not being real, has lots of confidence for a reason. Rejection is worse for a guy without confidence. It's a big vicious circle, obviously, but advice like "Be confident!" and "Don't worry about rejection!" work best for people who don't need that advice.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:29 AM
Matt,
By your description of the meeting I surmised that you had already had enough social interaction with this woman to know if you were being an unwanted intrusion or not. I would certainly never advocate asking random women on the street for their numbers right out of the blue! That would be incredibly rude and almost criminal.
So what if you asked and she said "no thanks" and you later met her in a social setting? I don't think that would be terribly akward. She might remember you favorably. The worst that could happen, I suppose, is if she told the group you had 'accosted her' at a bus stop, but that would be a lie.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:29 AM
For instance our own John Emerson.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:30 AM
John,
Very good points. Please see chapters two and four in my book.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:30 AM
187 to 185
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:31 AM
178: Well, sure, but it's a category of hyperbole that comes up a fair amount: in discussions of sexual harassment; of rape, and what consent means... I really do get the sense, from conversations about sexual issues with men, that lots of you guys have a conception that making a sexual or romantic approach is an offense somehow -- like it's on a continuum with rape or harassment, but much much milder. This is, to put it mildly, nuts, and so I tend to comment on even jokes made on the basis of that assumption.
179: Sure you can. Don't take it personally if she says no, but there's not a thing wrong with that. (Something I've seen suggested is, in such circumstances, pre-emptively handing her your number and saying that you'd like to see her again, and she should call you.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:32 AM
Cala,
Couldn't resist.
I know. Offering women the chance to be witty is one of my charms.
I've got others . . .
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:34 AM
I would certainly never advocate asking random women on the street for their numbers right out of the blue!
But the book project would involve something pretty close to that. Well, not right out of the blue, but at least talking to women on the street or wherever much more than you ordinarily do. And probably erring on the side of asking for her number. But obviously judgment is called for (as it was in Headley's case) -- if she's going for the pepper spray say "It was nice talking to you" and walk away.
(Not responsible for advice taken.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:34 AM
Something I've seen suggested is, in such circumstances, pre-emptively handing her your number and saying that you'd like to see her again, and she should call you.
I was under the impression that that was a somewhat fuckwitted move. In fact, I can tell you exactly where I get that impression: Sushi for Beginners, by Marian Keyes. To say anything more would constitute spoilage, I guess.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:37 AM
190:
Lizardbreath,
Very very good point. I think many younger men feel that there is something wrong in sexually desiring a woman. They think of bad examples such as rape, harrassment, 'only wanting me for my body,' or 'bad before marriage.'
Over the years I have gotten more comfortable with my own sexuality to where I now no longer deny it. I don't run around bragging about it and I am mindful of other's feelings but I am also true to myself and my desires and preferences.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:43 AM
Opinions vary on whether this works (you may be seen as a friend), but—if there's a chance that you'll see her again in some social context, e.g. synagogue softball—asking for or giving an e-mail can be a little bit less threatening.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:44 AM
ugh-- exchanging e-mail addresses
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:47 AM
Nowadays all the kids are exchanging AIM screen names.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 9:48 AM
A couple of times I made a project of writing notes to cute guys I saw on the subway, or in one case, a guy who was my waiter in a restaurant, with my name and phone number and something about what struck me about them. In the subway cases, I didn't speak to them before I gave them my note, but then I had to explain what I was doing. The very first time I ever did it, I got a call. The guy had been handsome and well-dressed and speaking Spanish to a couple of his friends, so on a very silly whim, right before I got off the train, I wrote him I note that said "Eres muy guapo" (you are very handsome) with my name and number. (I was later pissed at myself that I hadn't written something in a more natural Latin American idiom, like "Te ves bien" or "Luces bien.") Anyway, he called the next day, we went out, and it was one of the best first dates I have ever been on in my life. We were quickly and palpably attracted to each other; we had a surprising overlap in interests despite being of different race and class; we chatted about Latin American lit, his songwriting, psychology and social work, easily and naturally switching between languages, I got multiple nice guy (not "nice guy") cues from him--all in all. There was only one catch. He had a girlfriend. And before you all get skeeved, it wasn't like that. He disclosed it immediately; he wasn't intending to cheat on her; he was in the process of psychologically adjusting to the fact that he was a new and unplanned father and a relationship he had intended to be casual was becoming the focus of his life, and he couldn't quit the renumerative job he hated because of the baby, etc., and he just wanted a little break to chat with the random white girl on the train who'd asked him out. The other two times I did it I didn't get a response (the waiter may have been gay, in fact).
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 10:02 AM
Homewrecker! (I kid.)
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 10:05 AM
Remunerative! (I am deadly serious.)
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 10:22 AM
Thanks Ben. That wasn't mistyping; I genuinely didn't know.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 10:25 AM
At least she is an honest homewrecker.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 10:26 AM
That wasn't mistyping; I genuinely didn't know.
I used to think it was "renumerative" and "renumeration," too. Since it involves money, the "numeration" part seems right. The correct words look/sound weird. According to webster.com, "remuneration," like "munificent," derives from the Latin "munus" (gift).
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 10:39 AM
he was in the process of psychologically adjusting to the fact that he was a new and unplanned father and a relationship he had intended to be casual was becoming the focus of his life, and he couldn't quit the renumerative job he hated because of the baby, etc.,
Jeebus. I have to admit that stories like this make me sympathetic to the male right groups (or whatever the people who want to be able to deny financial responsibility for a kid prior to its birth are called). I feel bad about that sympathy, but I definitely feel it.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 10:42 AM
Tia, never, never admit anything. This is the real world -- the world of Ogged. Anything you say will be held against you. It's a common mistype.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 10:53 AM
To 194: I'm still having trouble getting over that, particularly living in a big city and seeing attractive women on the train, etc. The net effect is probably to make me appear creepier than I would appear if I were to approach this in some yet-to-be-determined "normal" way.
I blame the damn feminists!
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 10:56 AM
Well, not approaching attractive women on the train out of fear of rejection is time-honored, reasonable, and non-creepy. So you can keep on doing exactly what you're doing now, so long as you remember that if you wanted to strike up a conversation and ask for a phone number, you wouldn't be doing anything wrong.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:03 AM
To be fair to the guys, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't thinking bad things about you. There are women who seem to regard the fact that men ask women out at all, even in a non-creepy way, as an imposition. For example, some older women I knew were het up that Raj asked Robin the secretary out after he was kicked off of The Apprentice: 2. However, they are ridiculous. If you are nice and chill and non-creepy, take the hint when women try to send leave me alone vibes, you're not doing anything wrong.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:10 AM
True -- I shouldn't put the responsibility for the misconception all on the guys, there are women who are offended simply by being approached. But (a) as Tia says, assuming that you're behaving in a reasonable and polite fashion, and cheerfully take 'no' for an an answer, you aren't doing anything wrong, and (b) women who are offended by a polite approach are, while not non-existent, rarer than most men seem to think they are.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:16 AM
What if it's a woman who works at the same place I do, and who I've determined also lives in my same neighborhood, and with whom I've frequently shared an elevator? In a situation like that, is it more or less creepy to studiously avoid social interaction with her?
Maybe my kick-ass beard makes me look like an arrogant grad student who can't be bothered to talk to the commoners, though, and she's actually the one who's intimidated to talk to me!
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:20 AM
What if it's a woman in a seminar I'm taking and another I'm auditing?
Maybe my decidedly not kick-ass beard plays a role here.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:22 AM
Anita Hill started this whole thing. It's all about looks, you know? Because if Clarence Thomas looked like Denzel Washington, this would have never happened! She'd be all, "Oh, stop it, Clarence, you nasty! Your fine self!" So, what's sexual harrassment, when an ugly man wants some? "Oh, he ugly! Call the police! Call the authority!"
-Chris Rock
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:23 AM
210 and 211: You should talk to her even if you don't want to date her because it's friendly.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:25 AM
There was this hot Lutheran woman in one of my seminars -- kind of disaffected and unsure she wanted to go into ministry, which is so hot -- but I never talked to her until the end of the semester, when she revealed that she had really enjoyed having me in class and liked what I had to say and... then the next semester she was off to do her internship in North Dakota or something. Plus, the Lutheran seminary is just north of 55th St., and as everyone in Hyde Park knows, anywhere north of 55th is "the ghetto" and you'll be shot on sight, so it probably wouldn't have worked.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:26 AM
Chris Rock gets it: it's an imposition, unless she thinks you're hot.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:27 AM
Did anyone watch the Boondocks when MLK came back?
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:28 AM
Don't you mean "south of 60th"? The bigass liquor store is on 53rd.
I pity the fools who are too timorous to go to Rajun Cajun, Harold's Chicken Shack, Ribs 'n' Bibs, Hyde Park Produce, or any of the places that are reportedly pretty good but which I never went to for some reason.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:29 AM
What am I, Dear Abby? You're allowed to say "Hi," to chat, and to ask if she'd like to get some coffee or go see a movie or something. If it works out, great, you've made a friend or possible romantic prospect; on the other hand, if you get the sense that she doesn't want to chat, you drop back to a smile and a nod. (Which, you know, Clarence Thomas's error. If not everyone in the workplace is into the Long Dong Silver conversation, that's when you're responsible for dropping the subject.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:30 AM
as Tia says, assuming that you're behaving in a reasonable and polite fashion, and cheerfully take 'no' for an an answer, you aren't doing anything wrong,
Sort of. This kind of varies with the woman's generally perceived attractiveness. There are women who get hit on relentlessly, by nice guys asking only once, because they have a certain look (really attractive and approachable). I know a female secretary who had to be moved to an interior office because too many of the men were coming by to chat her up. She couldn't get any work done. (FTR: I was not one of the guys. Well, not after her first day.)
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:31 AM
LB, you'd be a great advice columnist. Maybe you should get that going as a side gig.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:31 AM
I'm actually already seeing someone, who incidentally lives right behind the plaza where the liquor store is. I'd say that the "safe zone" is considered to be between 60th and 51st, with some level of doubt the further north you go. Some guy got shot a few weeks ago at 54th and Woodlawn.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:32 AM
"chat"?
This is too much work.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:32 AM
Rajun Cajun is quite good. There's lots of stuff on 53rd, and on 51st. I used to live on 54th & Ingleside, and only got shot twice, and in non-lethal areas.
Plus, all the fancy high rises are on 51st. I call shenanigans.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:34 AM
Is Mr. G's still there on 53d? That was an oddly good little grocery store -- looked shabby, but every time I needed something arcane, it was in stock.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:37 AM
Rajun Cajun is a ridiculous concept, even though it is quite good -- Indian food and Southern food, under one roof? I like the "Asian restaurant corridor" on 55th, too -- like two Korean restaurants and three Thai places.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:38 AM
I've never had the southern dishes, but I like that they're available.
I once sat in that korean restaurant with my girlfriend for roughly an hour without being served. It was the kim jong-il t-shirts.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:41 AM
Mr. G's has been pressed into the service of the Co-op.
There's also the Japanese place on 55th.
The great thing about Rajun Cajun is that although it produces southern food from two continents, none of it is Cajun.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:42 AM
I don't think Mr. G is still there.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:42 AM
I thought the fried chicken might be laced with "cajun spices" a la popeye's. Has anyone ever rented one of the bollywood offerings on display?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:45 AM
Indian food and Southern food, under one roof?
When I was an undergrad, there was a restaurant in Chapel Hill called Cisco, Charlie, and Chang's, that served Mexican, Cajun, and Chinese.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:46 AM
The fried chicken is good, especially with some of that spicy cauliflower stuff.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:46 AM
Yeah, I don't even recognize the name (Mr. G's).
What's that Mexican place that's on the lower level of the Harper plaza? I was told that that's the best Mexican in Hyde Park, and if that's so, then they frankly need some new Mexican restaurants.
Btw, my market research reveals that Mexican is the fastest-growing fast food format. If you're part of a private equity group, I'd recommend buying up some chain. Perhaps "Pepe's (Wonderful Mexican Food)."
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:46 AM
Mr. G's is the coop location in the plaza with Kimball Liquors, the new Nile, Harold's, etc.
Not only does HP need better Mexican restaurants, they need a better way to get to Pilsen. Taking the 55 to Ashland, then the Ashland bus north, is not necessarily a good way, unless you luck out on the bus.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:48 AM
I'm pretty sure it's the only mexican place in hyde park, or the only place you can get a burrito. Some sort of female name with an L. Not Leona's. I have failed.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:51 AM
Maravilla's! Come to think, that's probably not anybody's name.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:57 AM
No, there's also that shitty Pepe's place, of which the late F. Winston Codpiece III did a review at my site.
Ben, You could just take the Jeffery Local to the Green Line, then switch to the Blue Line at Clark and Lake.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 11:59 AM
Like that's ideal.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 12:00 PM
Any place that requires a bus ride is not accessible by public transportation.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 12:03 PM
In that case, Hyde Park is not accessible by public transportation.
What's wrong with the bus? Irrational fear of frottage, or you just don't like dealing with the plebs?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 12:05 PM
(The Metra doesn't count.)
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 12:05 PM
I'm with Ogged. I'm a huge fan of public transit but in the six years I've lived in NYC/DC, I've never taken the bus. Subways are more reassuring – there's a track so obviously you're at the right place. One has to come along sooner or later. Buses seem more...I don't know...magical? Like if you stand on a corner and wish really hard, maybe one will come by. Or maybe one won't.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 12:12 PM
I'm not Dear Abby either, but I'm gonna speak up again.
First - read Chapter two of my book! There are ways to tell before you speak, and if you get the "do not bother' vibe then DON'T BOTHER them. Pay attention to the signals. Most women who don't want to be approached (because they are married or HOT or who knows the reason) are able to make that VERY clear before you even speak, so honor their request.
Second, is it okay to ask out someone who is dating? Yes! I've asked many women if they were dating someone else when their (future) husband asked them out and they've said "yes." If they are dating a friend or family member - no good, otherwise okay. Obviously married people are verboten.
Third - Dating someone from work - the plus is that there is plenty of time to get the vibe and check the signals. The big minus is that if things go wrong they can go VERY wrong. Personally I never did it.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 12:13 PM
So do you just walk across Central Park every single time, Becks?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 12:14 PM
Dating someone from work
Done it, wouldn't recommend it.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 12:17 PM
If they are dating a friend or family member
Don't ask out women who date members of their own family. Check.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 12:19 PM
If they are dating... family member
I would say that anyone whose dating a family member is someone you probably don't want to get involved with. ("So, Jocasta... do people call you Jo? Anyway, I was wondering what you were doing Friday...")
There are ways to tell before you speak, and if you get the "do not bother' vibe then DON'T BOTHER them. Pay attention to the signals. Most women who don't want to be approached (because they are married or HOT or who knows the reason) are able to make that VERY clear before you even speak, so honor their request.
Eh... it's not that you're wrong, but chatting someone up who doesn't want to be talked to isn't a major offense, and I don't think the "If you can't confidently read people's non-verbal signals before speaking to them, you don't deserve to make contact with new people," approach is productive for people who aren't already confident. Yes, you shouldn't try to socialize with someone who is hiding behind furniture to get away from you, but if you're uncertain, you're allowed to say "Hi."
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 12:19 PM
Cisco, Charlie, and Chang's, that served Mexican, Cajun, and Chinese
Now, it just sells routers.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 12:19 PM
243 - Yep. But I live downtown, so usually when I'm going uptown I'm only planning on going to one side of the park or the other.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 12:19 PM
f they are dating a... family member
Isn't this illegal in most states?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 12:20 PM
The corolloary to 245 and 246 is, if their datee isn't a friend of theirs by now, you probably don't want to get involved with them -- love-hate relationships aren't as much fun as they sound.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 12:21 PM
Stealing a friend's s.o.? Not a good idea. It's bound to lose you more than just that friend.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 12:23 PM
243 -- When I lived near Columbia, before I figured out how to use the bus, one time I took the 1 train down to 42nd, the Shuttle to Grand Central, and the 6 train up to my destination (forgetting where now but I think it was probably Hunter College).
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-17-06 12:23 PM
Anyway, aren't cousins officially OK now?
Posted by Matt Weiner |