As a lot of other people have said, consider branching out beyond Sacramento; the Bay Area is just chock full of eligible bachelors, I'm sure, and how long is the drive?
it would be great if you could learn to change your body language to signal availability and sexual interest, but as I'm sure you know, that's very hard to do if it doesn't come naturally
Hanging a handwritten sign reading "AVAILABLE FOR SEX" around your neck can overcome any amount of ambiguous body language.
I'll stay out of the comments for a while; I want to see where they go without me. I haven't done well with Internets dating, though I've put ads on both those sites.
In the January archives on my blog are the two ads I've placed on Craigslist in the past two years. One of them made Best-of-Craigslist. The Boyfriend Quiz got over a hundred responses, but it turned out to be a bad filter. I went on ten dates based on funny responses to the quiz. Only one of those men had a four-year degree and all he wanted to talk about was the process of dating on Craigslist. Four-year degrees aren't everything, but none of those men was right for me. The whole thing (screening emails, arranging logistics, meeting people, making pleasant conversation) was an amazing amount of work.
Still, since my current situation isn't what I want, I am happy for advice. I'll be reading along...
I think Tia's advice is excellent, and I'll second it. I'll also add the advice to stop worrying about if one is attractive to men, and just start flirting with, and then asking out, the guys one is attracted to. Hell, including the married guys and the guys with girlfriends. Don't date 'em--despite my own life, I don't think cheating is a great idea, and I don't think that's what she wants anyway--but surely some of them have single friends....
This is as good a place as any to note that this is a completely stupid phrase. Things that are potentially interesting: the greatest common denominator; the lowest common multiple. A thing that is probably uninteresting: the lowest common denominator, which, for any n-tuple, is 1.
What about sex chat rooms? Surprisingly fun, if you stumble upon someone who is capable of saying something other than "who here wants to suck my cok?"
21: But is that not the deeper truth of the saying? The lowest common denominator is not interesting. No matter what you start with, it is the same. That is why going for the lowest common denominator is deprecated, for it destroys all traces of the original conversation. And the lowest common denominator is, of course, Borges' Ritual of the Phoenix, which as he says all words refer to whatever their literal signification may be.
Things that are potentially interesting: the greatest common denominator; the lowest common multiple. A thing that is probably uninteresting: the lowest common denominator, which, for any n-tuple, is 1.
Actually, I think someone who pointed out that the "lowest common denominator" is always 1 in a sex-chat thread would totally be someone I'd want to sleep with.
Also, regarding 16, though you should try to do as much possible winnowing before you go to the effort of meeting them (asking for a BA is not off-putting in an ad, and is a useful selection criterion; you can't be totally open to everything; it's a bad use of your energy), I know internet dating is frustrating and daunting at first, but it's kind of a numbers game, and if you go on some that don't work out it doesn't mean that the internet doesn't work in the long run. It means that finding a boyfriend is extraordinarily hard. (I don't think you should necessarily limit yourself to the net, but it's a valuable weapon in your arsenal.)
Not only am I going to offer sincere(ish) advice, I'll suggest that Megan try to meet potential mates in real life. She went on ten dates with internet randoms and managed not to hook up with any of them. New tactic needed! Are there any busy cafes chock-full of young people you could frequent?
Also: I totally disagree with her original post's position on "girl clothes." Tia's right that one shouldn't dress differently as part of a short-term strategy to get laid, but there's a broad category of clothing between "dressed to do chores" and "dressed to please the patriarchy."
Last: last time Mutombo was mentioned, I looked up his Wikipedia entry and concluded that I might not mind sexing Mutombo.
My first reaction to reading answer c to point 7 was, "wait, there were no comma splices there". And you know what? Based on my understanding of what comma splices are, there weren't!
Also, consider this clause: "if I were seduced by your explaining some difficult theory to me"—note that this leaves completely open whether or not she's likely to be seduced by such things; it only establishes what did not need establishment, that is, that if one is seduced, one has been seduced.
Hanging a handwritten sign reading "AVAILABLE FOR SEX" around your neck
Too open to misinterpretation. For instance, who's to say that the sign is directed at each and every reader. Also, not to be crude (at the Mineshaft), but it doesn't describe precisely what is available for sex.
Last Friday there were two threads that (eventually) went over 150 and one near 300. I suspect not having the blog in the morning was a huge factor; sometimes out here on Pacific time there are 100 comment threads by 9 or 10.
That reminds me of a game that was (perhaps) invented by the Yeti blog guy from that puzzle thread. It's called a Googlefuck. What it is is a google query that returns one and only one result.
1. Sean is an ass - dress the way you would normally dress, behave as you normally would. You've dated people you liked before, so you can't really need much adjustment here.
2. Are there seriously no women who read this blog who are not thin waisted and thick breasted?
Actually I really do hate that song. I think we had to sing it in elementary school until I got sick of it. I feel a little guilty about hating it, though, b/c my grandmother liked it and would sing it sometimes.
70: I don't see the relevance of 2. Nice try, though.
It did make me go back and re-read Megan's posts, though, and I have new advice: if guys in their 30s are pulling the "I'm tired of slutting around" line, aim your sights at guys in their 20s.
It's been a while since I've seen them. Both have similar set-ups, but in the 1934 version the husband and wife don't have such strictly differentiated gender roles. The woman in the 1934 version is skilled at shooting, not singing. And the 1934 version has a quite realistic looking urban shoot-out. I thought it was much better than the 1956 version, but then, I really loathed that movie.
#75: No. 2 was a joke based on a prior thread in which it seemed that every woman who regularly comments here complained about how hard it was to find clothing if one's breast were too large and one's waist too small. Something in one of Megan's posts said roughly the same.
74: I don't listen to that much music. When I was a kid, I didn't know who U2 were. I do rather like them, BTW. Mostly I like oldies stuff by dead people, e.g., Marvin Gaye and Nick Drake.
Coldplay is okay too, and I like the Shins which I discovered viaGarden State. I like pretty much everything on the soundtrack to High Fidelity.
I also kind of like Dar Williams (I won't be Your Yoko Ono especially), but I was hoping for a true concert going experience (though I'll skip the drugs, apo) and I don't think that folk counts.
75: but men in their thirties seem to undergo this physiological change whereby they last for ages and ages during sex, as opposed to younger guys who...don't. leaving you lots of time for... more. more!
21 is just wrong. "Lowest common denominator" is another term for "least common multiple" of two fractions' denominators: the lowest common denominator of ½ and ⅔ is 6. Neither of those fractions can be expressed as having a denominator of 1 (unless the numerator is fractional, which is Not Standard Practice.)
The mistake B-Wo makes in 21 seems to be that he is reading "divisor" in place of "denominator", and dealing only with integers. "Denominator" is more meaningful in the context of fractions, which is where it is commonly used.
The only people I know who have had good luck meeting people online at match.com and the like are men. No clue if this is true, but I suspect there is a disproportionate amount of creepy men online (so the normal ones are lucky.) The people I know who have been happy online met through online forums or games rather than meat markets.
Dress so you feel comfortable and sexy, whatever form that takes. (If you're not one for skirts and stilettos, e.g., a) why would you want to attract guys who like skirts and stilettos ? and b) you'll be awkward and uncomfortable.)
Other than that, I'd recommend joining an activity or club and see what happens. If you meet someone, you'll at least have something in common, and if you don't, you'll at least have a new activity.
Oh, and to the guy on Megan's blog who posted that she should ask out guys because any advance he could make has been turned into an actionable sex offense:
Hey, jackass. Your problem isn't laws, it's that you try to ask out women by grabbing boobies. I promise you no one's been labeled a sex offender for asking someone out for coffee. Freak!
I know a few couples (who span the continuum from normal to creepy) that met on Match or Nerve or something similar, but the signal-to-noise ratio is bad for the women, I'm told.
What about the old standby friend-of-a-friend approach? None of Megan's friends are stepping up to the plate to set her up?
Yeah, that was the main motivation for my using it.
99: But presumably at least some of the women who hooked up with the men you know who made a good connection on match.com etc. also made a good connection on match.com etc.
To bring in the advice I left on Megan's blog, so that you guys can rip it to shreds, I think she should make friends with more coupled-up people. Most of the couples I know have a couple of single friends on whose behalf they are vaguely looking for someone all the time -- if you make friends with a new couple, you get a hack at their pet singles, and the pet singles are prescreened because they're friends of someone you like.
I got married through a version of this -- when I got back from Samoa, Dr. Oops (my big sister, for those reading along at home) and her best friend from high school dropped Buck in my lap with a glowing review of "Not for either of us as a boyfriend, but a great guy. Try him out and see how it works."
Buck and I have a couple of single men we shop around to anyone who looks interesting (admittedly, I'm starting to give up on the British journalist. I, personally, like gawky sardonic potheads, but although everyone we've fixed him up with seems to like him, it never sticks.) Some good friends of ours have been trying to fix up Dr. Oops with a history blogger (they know him through non-internet means) whose name I don't want to mention for reasons of Google, for ages -- it's not working because she's resisting being fixed up, and I haven't given the guy glowing reviews, but the principle of the thing remains.
And 103 is exactly right, except that the word 'calabat' should have been worked in somehow. (See also.) Megan, you should totally hang around here, we won't take out our sexual frustrations in the form of anti-feminist backlash.
I had this change in my forties, after thinking about it (not that that means anything; I might have been thinking about it due to physical changes taking place). Because of the different timing from what mmf! suggests, I'd vote for experience. I suppose the interesting thing is that the motivation came from within, not because there had been complaints; it had irritated me, but I wouldn't say it was an obssession. It was however, very well received, with a sense of astonishment and wonder.
Hey Megan, what about tomatoe on Salon? Have you talked to him? He seems like a likely sort if you really don't care about height. Also seiujohn looks decent, good politics, certainly.
I thought 110 was a great idea. (But you've already mentioned the history blogger's name, and we disapprove.)
Also, this just occurred to me: How about jdate? IIRC Megan is eligible, I know a couple that got together that way, and I suspect that it's more likely to garner serious offers, since having children relatively soon is a concern.
Jdate: So long as she isn't in NY. A lawyer acquaintance in the midst of a messy divorce is signed up there, and I, personally, would be willing to risk years of celibacy to avoid the risk of finding myself on a date with this guy.
This sounds like good advice. For example, if you are looking for a divorced or widowed Korean woman in her 50's or 60's (some of dubious immigration status), my wife has several she would like to recommend. But maybe this is not what Megan is looking for.
Another traditional route is church (if you go). Not only can you meet people, but it is a way to meet the married women who (see 110) are shopping unmarried guys.
And, to end on an earnest note, I would like to contradict some of the conventional wisdom-based advice Megan got on her blog and (to an extent) here. Of course there must be something to the dress more girly, do the downcast eyes thing, they are standard fare. That said, I fell in love with the great love of my life because she talked about interesting (sometimes geeky) stuff, told lots of lame jokes and was just basically a totally cool person. She was almost totally non-girly. I am sure I must have seen her in high heels, but I do not remember ever doing so. Indeed, she possessed few of the traits I usually found attractive in women. But she was fun and honest and smart and genuine.
Getting to your quandry: I am typical guy. Sure that girly stuff is interesting, but I do not think that that is what closes the deal. Rather, I would start with showing a genuine interest in whatever guy(s) you like and letting them get to know you. Simple as that. So if there is a guy out there you think is a good guy, just do the things you would do to anyone, man or woman, to show that you like him--say hello with a smile, find reasons to talk to him, buy him a cup of coffee, find something you both are interested in and talk about it. Really, it's a low tech approach, but I think you might get more solid results.
On review, this sounds corny. But I think it's true.
For me the change was pretty much instantaneous and, it seems to me, coterminous with having finally stumbled on the right partner. Which, I guess, is a form of experience.
Since in principle I've always favored a no-nonsense everyday-self presentation, I've tried to imagine from the point of view of the science guy I once was what might confuse me about Megan, and what she might do to show interest without falseness.
It occurs to me I never had much success with my, or interest in other people's "broadcast messages," which dressing hott is for Megan; at best it shows a side of you that might not have been seen before. I tried to get the attention of particular people whom I found interesting. Once in a while, the way you act while attempting to interest one person interests somebody else.
And interest is the key word: reserve, speaking with care, obvious attention to a person's reaction and close interest in what they say, are obvious no matter what style you feel comfortable using.
Instantaneous sure must have intensified your relationship--sounds like you'd had the impression you'd previously been with the wrong species. About 2/3ds the way (so far) through a long-term relationship, for no discernable reason, in my case.
124 gets it so right: To be interesting one must be interested. It's a two way street though.
The greatest love of my life did drop me stone cold with her looks. I knew in that instant that she was cool, funny, bright, kind and honest. I do remember what she was wearing but, apart from the fact that I think she would look good if she were wearing sack cloth, it was so not the clothes that did the damage, nor her figure. Eyes. The eyes have it. The verbal communication then was about trading mutual interests and playing a mental snap game.
Remember though, non-verbal communication rates are somwhere around 10^7 bips, whereas verbal rates are a power of 5 lower.
Oh, and to the guy on Megan's blog who posted that she should ask out guys because any advance he could make has been turned into an actionable sex offense:
"Caliban" chose the right name, though.
I can't give any advice that hasn't been given. I'm notoriously bad at looove advice anyway. I just continue to be delighted at how the internet turns the entire world into one big college dormitory.
Joe, you are sooo not allowed to date-marry-reproduce delightful little munchkins with Becks anymore. Sean's an ass. He's clearly a good friend of Megan's, and I'm sure that he has hidden depths, yadda yadda yadda. But if he doesn't strike her as an ass in this particular area, that's part of the problem. The guy she thinks she wants is not the guy she actually wants.
Usually, there's a pretty obvious solution to apparent market mismatch situations - lower your standards.
I don't know about this -- who wouldn't rather be single than be with someone they weren't excited about? I can see re-examining your standards, in case you wanted to decide that you might possibly be attracted to someone other than a 6'5" left-handed red-head with six fingers on the right hand, but not just globally lowering them.
I have to admit, whenever people discuss these things, they always seem impossibly picky, serious and whiny about it. I realise that's uncharitable, but ...
I still maintain that American dating culture is pathologically wierd and leads to all these problems.
SCMT, I think Joe was closer to right than you were in 70. The fact of the matter is that there is behavior that signals receptiveness to men that Megan is probably not exhibiting right now, to her detriment. If she's not going to keep on with the web it would be for the best if she learns it. It doesn't have to be a particular style of femme, and IDP got at something important with interest--two of my best friends, Clementine and [oh, hell, she needs a food-related pseud, lemme think], are natural dude magnets because they're a) purty and b) telegraph natural interest in the person they talk with. They make eye contact, they smile, and they ask lots and lots of questions.
One difference between the Mineshaft and a traditional advice column: I'll bet this post generates at least 5 at-least-tolerable dates for her. Minimum.
I'm just skimming because I came in late, but Tia's point #4 is the difference between getting laid and not getting laid. The problem is, if I go to a bar and some guy talks to me, I am automatically skeptical. Has he read Pynchon? Does he know Jesus was a homonecrophiliac in the gnostic gospels? Is he picky about pizza? These are vital pieces of information, and on top of that, I am not particularly in the mood when surrounded by strangers.
However, when at a bar with one stranger about whom I already know several vital pieces of information, and about whom I have already practiced having dirty thoughts, it is quite simple to turn a few drinks into breakfast. (Or, whatever, a "relationship" if that's your bag.)
I highly recommend the internet. You'll go out with a few losers and then you'll figure out how to craft a profile that makes losers cower in fear.
Tim, can you send me a memo or something so I can keep track of who you're pimping me out to each week? I can't keep up. At least Weiner was consistent.
133: I tend to think, per #134, that we're not usually very good at sorting out what's really important to us in another person at the outset. It's hard to reexamine your standards outside the context of specific experiences.
But, on the other hand, I think you're totally right. So, as might be expected, I don't know.
For example, most people I know do the 'dating' thing e.g. meals, cinema, coffee, etc. after they've at least kissed the person, and usually after they've slept with 'em.
These kind of 'what if he doesn't match my 18 point checklist' anxieties and the quasi-formal assessment process that always gets discussed whenever Americans bring these things up just seem wierd and forced and unnatural.
That's interesting Tim, but I'd also say that intuition can say a lot that facts don't. I met my bf on Nerve, and lots of "facts" about him didn't match up with what I was looking for. He had kids, he wasn't divorced yet, he was too old, he was also a lit PhD (my fear of competitiveness), and, at the time, he was on anti-depression meds. All of this sounds like a miserable time, but he seemed casual about the date, met me somewhere interesting, laughed at all my jokes, and waited till we were at the train to make out with me. He just seemed nice without being clingy, which is pretty rare in NYC men.
It's true that there's only so much you can get from a few facts and talking on the phone (and I was lied to a lot by guys), but I think you can get a sense of whether someone's a good person or not.
Here is the thing I discovered about myself, then started to notice about similar self-styled too-cool/smart/wise/clever-for-school types, of which it sounds like Megan is one.
Used to be, I tended to not go for the traditional route of trying to make myself more attractive in a general way, because I figured, I don't want to be attractive to just anyone; the Right Person will see how attractive I am, underneath! Not to mention, those other plebes don't deserve my extra effort, anyway!
This is obviously madness. Because then, the people I turned out to be attracted to didn't necessarily find me attractive, because I wasn't used to putting out a general I-am-attractive vibe. Once I discovered that I liked someone, I had to then switch gears and try to play a whole different game, and sometimes it worked, but usually the you-are-a-friend ship had long since sailed.
It's much more useful, I've found, to make a conscious effort to be as attractive as you can be from the get-go (this isn't about primping or clothes or whatever; more about throwing off a flirty/sexy/romantic vibe more than you might be used to), and those special people who are good enough for your picky self will already be interested, because they see you as a potential mate right off the bat (mate for whatever, I mean), rather than having to go the long way around of getting to know someone, THEN starting to take it to a flirty place, THEN seeing whether the flirting is returned, etc.
This discussion does lead me to wonder if the fall of the meddling matchmaker in real life is an unfortunate side-effect of our more disconnected society. While I'm kind of relieved not to have my family trying to set me up with people, I doubt they'd do much worse than I have myself.
chrikey, 150 comments (plus god knows how many on the other site) and none of you lot have worked out that 1) she wants to fuck her friend Sean, 2) she might or might not know this, 3) she might or might not realise that this is her way of asking. The world is in a hell of a state if I am the last one left with a scrap of feminine intuition round here.
149: I've often thought that hey, I'm busy, I don't have time for dating, my parents know me well enough not to pick a horrible person, if I had veto power, what would be so bad about an arranged marriage?
Then I realize my dad hates all men as potential Daughter Corruptors®, and then I sober up, and then I procrastinate in other ways.
152: I assumed that if she wasn't an idiot she'd thought of that already, and that Sean was either gay, married, definitively neither attractive nor attracted to her, or an ex who she'd stayed friends with but didn't want to date. If I'm wrong about that, you're right. Megan, ask Sean out.
I had the "She should go for Sean" thought, but I tend to discount the truth value of things I learned from romantic comedies so severely that they've moved to teh false.
165 - I've got an even better one for you, Joe. I went out with someone for a while earlier this year (I don't tell you guys everything -- shocking, I know) and he told me that it took him about an hour to work up the nerve to kiss me because he couldn't figure out if I wanted him to or not. This hour that he's not sure whether I dig him or not? Is with both of us sitting on the couch back at my apartment after our date. I, apparently, can even invite a guy back to my place and still not transmit enough signals to let him know it's OK to make a move. Wooooo! Hook 'em!
I think that's got to be on him to a certain extent. I have a similar story which I won't share the details of because it was told in confidence, and the failure to appreciate similar signals appears completely inexplicable.
(Hell, Buck and I have a semi-similar story; I was shy about making the first move, and he was equally shy. The first time we kissed was well after midnight after I'd been sitting on his couch, dressed in something ridiculously sexy (remember for about six months in 1994-95, women were actually wearing catsuits?) for hours.)
1. Sean is not an ass and I do not want to sleep with him. (If any of you are looking for a hot hapa professor at Vassar, though, I would be happy to refer you.) We settled the idea of fucking long, long before Sean and I were good enough friends that he would critique my appearance.
2. I have often thought that my friends are not doing nearly enough work to pimp me out. On the other hand, we all tend to meet new men simultaneously, when he shows up at a pick-up game.
3. I am smiley and friendly and make eye contact with everyone. Remember? I do that shit with homeless men and lesbians. But the boys I like can't tell that I am trying to do that more with them.
4. My team and I were throwing "Who will fuck Dikembe?" around a tournament party one year. It was fun being on both sides of that.
5. I decided at one point that I wasn't going to sleep with anyone unless he wanted to have sex with me more than he wanted to have sex. That might be part of the problem, but I'm still not getting enough opportunities that I have to use that criteria.
Stretchy allover onepiece garment. No tail or whiskers, but otherwise what Catwoman would wear. Trust me, for about six months they were totally normal.
Oh, for the love of Saint Pete, people. Why do I hand my blog over to you if you can't even set me up with a hot woman who's practically begging for a date? I have to rely on Wolfson to have my back?
Look, Megan, I'm willing to stipulate that you're interested in me; no dressing up or complicated signalling required. Email Wolfson for my number.*
*Why Wolfson? Because he's a huge gossip, and it will make him happy.
I have a similar story which I won't share the details of because it was told in confidence, and the failure to appreciate similar signals appears completely inexplicable.
No way to know for sure, but I guess that this might be the story I told you. And since you know it, I may as well tell the Internet (plus, after 25 years, one should be able to laugh at such things) since you are looking for examples of male cluelessness (mine, in this case).
When I was a young lieutenant stationed in Hawaii, I was dating a captain who worked with a friend of mine. We had gone to dinner several times and ran together to train for the Honolulu Marathon. However, we had not engaged in an overtly romantic activities, including kisses good night (hey, you have to be sure of your ground before you kiss a superior officer).
One Saturday, we went hiking up in the mountains. At the end of the day, we went back to her apartment, where she cooked dinner. Since we were wet and dirty from the hike, she suggested that I take a shower, and wear one of her bathrobes until she could wash and dry my clothes. She also showered, and instead of getting dressed, she wore a towel. I guess I should have taken all of this as a hint, but as a gentleman, I thought that I should wait for some more explicit signal.
While dinner was cooking, we were sitting on her couch and she said something about her feet being sore. I mustered my courage and asked if she wanted me to rub her feet. She agreed.
Sadly, soon after I started, a timer went off signaling that dinner was done. We stopped, she served dinner, we ate, I got dressed and went home. The topic never came up between us again (although I did kiss her goodnight at the end of a date a few dates later).
In retrospect, I guess I should have assumed that further advances would be welcome, However, like many guys, I wanted very much to avoid giving offense (and I am old enough that there was an assumption that unwanted romantic advances were offensive rather than something to be politely declined). LizardBreath, on hearing the story, more reasonably opined that I was merely an idiot.
You know she does sound strangely good for you, ogged - clearly outdoorsy, and - if she agrees to the date - she knows you're not. Might still be a squeaker, though.
I don't have a problem with this reticence and hesitation; if the captain was unwilling to tell you she wanted to go further, then she had dominance and gender-role issues, imo. This is par for the course with respectful men, and if it's frustrating for the woman, as I'm sure it is, then they have to summon up the will to address it. Hell, my mother has a similar story about my dad; what struck her in retrospect was how close she came to missing, how she didn't want to do it, and that they'd never have had a relationship if she hadn't.
It seems odd to me that this should confuse women as much as it apparently does, but the notion that women don't realize some very interested men need a more explicit go-ahead, and that those just might be the ones you most want to go ahead, seems to me to be an instance of head-slapping naivete just as much as the man who doesn't pick up "clear" signals.
I dunno, Megan. Ogged can be kind of a pain in the ass. I'm the real prize around here, provided you're looking for a married guy who lives 3,000 miles away from you (and really, who isn't?).
It seems odd to me that this should confuse women as much as it apparently does, but the notion that women don't realize some very interested men need a more explicit go-ahead, and that those just might be the ones you most want to go ahead, seems to me to be an instance of head-slapping naivete just as much as the man who doesn't pick up "clear" signals.
I'm glad someone said this. (Also, we're back to a 200 comment thread.)
I don't know whether in the above ogged is showing serious game or serious lack thereof. On the one hand, he got us all to spend a lot of time trying to make friends with Megan and give her good advice, and now we're all going to vouch for him. (As in 199.) On the other hand, e-mail her yourself already! Damn! Haven't we been over this? Manytimes?
(In all o-earnestness, I can understand how it would be hard to cold-call someone under these circumstances. Megan, ogged is a great guy, and from what I've read on your blog the two of you are soulmates. Which may mean you have no chance of getting off the ground, but....)
FWIW, my future wife and I met at a class we both went to on how to meet other single people.
I forgot to comment in response to 76 when it first came up. Frederick appears to be talking about someone who will one day (in the "future") be his wife. If she knows this, we normally use the word "fiance" to describe her relationship to you. If she doesn't know it, we normally use the words "stalking victim" for it.
In college, a hot woman I was interested in invited me up to her room "for cookies", and kept telling me "I'm so drunk!" even though she only seemed slightly tipsy. I was confused by this, but thought, "if she's drunk, I shouldn't make any moves right now. I'll come back tomorrow and ask her on a date." Then I ate my cookies and went home.
When I went back the next day she seemed really angry and didn't want anything to do with me. It took me quite a while to figure out why.
I've been embarassed about this for years, but Idealist's story made me feel a little better.
Except that both you and Idealist were picking up on the signals, just needed a more explicit go ahead than these women were willing to give, even though they were willing to do quite elaborate things instead, which at least in your case left them just as vulnerable and humiliated. In both cases these stories leave me thinking, "What's wrong with these women?" I don't think either of you did anything wrong and I think I would have done the same. Yes, I have gone forward when correctly interpreting signals, so it comes down to your sense of the situation. And that bit about being tipsy is just creepy.
The situation I'm mostly thinking of involved (1) while out in a group of friends, extracting a promise that I would walk her back to her apartment to protect her from the bogeyman; (2) immediately upon entering apartment, pulling her arms inside her sweatshirt, removing her bra, and commenting on how much better that felt; and (3) finding a reason to open the cupboard containing her condom supply. I was interested, but just not sure she was. It sort of seemed like maybe she was trying to tell me something, but she had a boyfriend in another state. I was still naive enough to think that a woman who had a boyfriend couldn't possibly be interested, so I figured I must be misunderstanding what was going on.
The one that really hurts was less obvious. I'm still not completely sure. But looking back, I kind of think that a woman whom I was hopelessly infatuated with for a long time may have been just as hopelessly infatuated with me, and that's just sad.
"if she's drunk, I shouldn't make any moves right now. I'll come back tomorrow and ask her on a date."
Good on you, Big Ben.
I'm so glad we're brainstorming better ways of signalling sexual interest in the thread above. "I'm incapacitated, please take advantage of me" is a Really Lame And Unfair way to get a guy into bed. If she was pissy about it the next day, I'll bet she was feeling a bit ashamed of herself.
I think she was feeling more scorned and disgusted with my cluelessness than ashamed. In her social group (she mostly dated football players and such) "I'm so drunk" was apparently a standard unambiguous mating call.
Like you said, it's another good reason to find better ways of signalling sexual interest, because that one is unacceptable for all sorts of reasons.
I think she was feeling more scorned and disgusted with my cluelessness than ashamed.
Then she was teh lame. Or she expressed in her behavior a socialization into conventions that are teh lame.
Either way, you behaved with decency in the face of temptation. If I could make it stick, I would adjudicate this memory as unembarrassing and in fact honorable.
213, nah, if she'd been dressed in a towel and asking for a footrub, I'd have totally caught on.
And I agree with 212 and 214. I remember fraternity guys joking that the mating call of a sorority girl was "I'm so wasted." Doing your part to combat that idea was an admirable thing.
I read Megan's blog this morning and thought "Wow. Ogged would be so into her!" Given that I haven't a clue who Megan or Ogged really are, that's really funny.
While I of course agree that the signals she was giving out were fucked up in several different ways, I still can't feel proud about my inability to read them. I would have done the right thing even if I had understood what was going on, but I'm not sure doing the right thing because of cluelessness is praiseworthy.
I guess it's honorable (but only in the "what do you want, a cookie?" sense) that I never considered taking advantage of a drunk woman to be an option, but the fact was that she wasn't really that drunk and was actively trying to seduce me (in an inappropriate way) and I was too dumb to notice.
It's good that I reinforced the idea that pretending to be drunk to get laid isn't always effective, but I'm afraid the message that got sent was not "decent guys won't sleep with you if you do that" but rather "clueless guys won't sleep with you if you do that." I'd rather it had been intentional.
I dunno, Ben. It sounds like the point is, you were clueless that "I'm so drunk" = "please make out with me now." That seems like something that more men *should* be clueless about, you know? It would be a better world if drunkness *weren't* associated with sexual availability.
Everyone, this is a private issue. I have permission from both parties to redact this entire argument and plan to do so. Please move the discussion along.
Is this where I mention, more on topic, that last week I was having dinner with a friend and when he said he thought he knew a few women he might be able to set me up with, all he could come up with were women who were already married?
I don't think it was intentional. I think he offered to set me up before thinking of anyone in particular, because when he then did think of someone he stopped and said, "oh, that wouldn't work, she's married." But that happened more than once.
217-219: Yay for Big Ben and absolutely appropriate cluelessness (which in this case does, I think, reflect principles on some level, or at least the absence of bad principles.) As you said, of course, 'whaddaya want, a cookie?' but given that you did, in face, get some cookies out of the deal, I'd say they were appropriate.
DaveL and Idealist, now, just should have been paying better attention.
How about this anecdote: When I was 18 I was working (as a PBX operator at Sears) with a woman who infatuated me. She talked about sex a lot and asked me to give her back rubs. So I (inexperienced in matters of love) figured I was maybe picking up on a signal there. I made an advance, not a very smooth one if I recall, it was something along the lines of asking her if she'd have sex with me, and was turned down flat. But we continued to hang out together, and she continued to talk about sex and ask me for back rubs. Well I'm pretty flummoxed at this point (and want really bad to terminate my state of inexperience) so I started trying to convince myself maybe her "no" a few weeks back had either "meant yes" or transformed itself magically into "yes". And I made another move, a non-verbal one, like if I am remembering right I was (in her apartment) giving her one the requested back rubs and moved in to kiss the back of her neck. Possibly there was contact of my lips with her skin, I don't remember. Well: she got really mad and threw me out, and we were not friends any longer after that. Wha' happen? Am I to blame? Is she?
I agree that these threads, and the one on B's earlier in the week, have been terrific. We've got to stop pretending to be well-mannered predators, when the reality is more complicated, more difficult and more respectable/admirable, if only we confess to it. What have we got to lose?
True, I was just clueless. She was a very nice woman, and my cluelessness probably made her feel bad. Oh well.
I agree that Big Ben sets an example for us all. Once, a woman I liked, but had not actively been planning to proposition (for a number of complicated reason) came on to me at a party and one thing led to another, as it will. Later, she told me that she had been drinking a whole lot more than I had realized, and that she in fact was very drunk when she came one to me. While had no idea, and while she never accused me of taking advantage of her or acting improperly (indeed, that night was the beginning of a romance, which while it ended very badly, was very special), I still am ashamed of not reallizing that she was not in a condition fully to realize what she was doing that night. So, young fellows, try to be like Big Ben in this regard, not me. Feeling guilty sucks.
And, what IdeaList said about feeling guilty. One of the worst feelings floating around in my psyche is the knowledge that I forced myself on a woman in my dormitory who was not really into it.
(Also, is my anecdote the exact opposite of IdeaList's or not quite?)
Pretty close. Although I must say that the woman in yours was just plain wrong. No means no, of course, but that still does not mean that she had any right to be mad at you for making a reasonable assumption about her intentions.
Much more her than you, I'd say. I wouldn't worry about this, and it's hard to stay friendly when both or either of you is aware of having behaved badly.
Much more her than you, I'd say. I wouldn't worry about this, and it's hard to stay friendly when both or either of you is aware of having behaved badly.
Thanks, but whatever else is clear, she did nothing wrong. The relationship ended heartbreakingly badly for unrelated reasons, but again her conduct was blameless.
Big Ben resonates with me, although I think in his situation, while principled would be fine, I'd rather be clueless than appalled. But I could write the book on clueless - when I got together with my much loved SO many years ago, I genuinely didn't notice anything was happening until she started taking her clothes off.
But even assuming most people are a bit brighter than me, I don't see the point of all these subtle hints. If you want to get laid, why not ask politely? Does anybody find it offensive any more to be told civilly that somebody finds them attractive? And "No, thank you" is not a ball busting demolition of somebody's character. On the other side of the equation, I accept that there are still men who get freaked out by women taking a sexual initiative, but isn't it a good idea to weed them out at an early stage?
I'm still not convinced you were wrong, or that she doesn't have just as much reason to regret not closing the deal as you. And if as I surmised above she needs on some level to follow, to be lead and dominated, then good for you not going there.
230: I'd call that unambiguously bad behavior on her part. I feel comfortable saying that because I have, back in college, behaved badly in pretty much precisely that way, and I still feel lousy about it. (Wasn't getting any attention from anyone I wanted, was getting attention from someone I liked a great deal, but didn't want, deliberately invited a pass, I'm not exactly sure why, and then didn't accept it when it came. Sorry about that, Craig, and I was very glad to run into you, happily married and apparently not holding the incident against me, last year. My only excuse is having been 18 and confused at the time.)
(And, you know, not to confuse the whole date-rape issue, when I say I behaved badly, and that TMK's friend behaved badly, that in no way means that TMK or Craig was entitled to do anything other than what they did, which was back off. That doesn't change the fact that inviting the pass was, in both cases, a mean and inconsiderate thing to do.)
In case clarification is needed, Idealist has referred to encounters with 2 different women. My remarks in 240 are addressed to the issue with the first one, "the Captain." Your own analysis of your relations with the second one (Tenille?) leaves nothing to be said.
239: Thouh I've been known to say, "just ask," myself, the reality is that ppl need hints and non-verbal clues because we *are* afraid of rejection, and maybe b/c sexual desire is so stigmatized (women: "he'll think I'm a slut!" men: "she'll think i'm a jerk!"). So we dance around trying to find out if we'll be rejected when we finally get to the point of making an umambiguous move.
Plus, blurting something out before it's time can make the *other* person uncomfortable. It's like any other social interaction: try not to make other people feel uncomfortable around you, try not to embarrass yourself. Hence, the need for flirting that allows plausible deniability in case the other person isn't interested.
The drinking issue, as in Ideal's story about Tenille, various unAmerican types talking about standard partner-finding behavior, and prior discussions of date-rape is a little complicated.
Myself, I think that given the reality that lots of people choose to drink socially, and that drinking encourages people to make different choices than they might sober (not necessarily things they mightn't want to do sober, just things that they wouldn't have actually done sober), that what a woman drinking actively chooses to do is on her, whether or not she's drunk.
The whole 'taking advantage of a drunk woman' issue isn't so much talking about someone drunk enough to have flung caution to the winds, it's about (IMO, anyway) not coercing someone who doesn't want to have sex, but is too drunk to be able to successfully enforce her refusal.
There are reasons to be cautious here: confusion is possible, and no one wants to get close to the line, but it doesn't sound as if Ideal was anywhere near that line with Tenille, nor that the standard drunken-Brits-snogging-after-a-night-at-the-pub is near that line either. (Do people really say 'snogging'?)
To an American, or at least to this American, it's an incredibly funny sounding word. Sort of like saying that normal British slang for kissing someone was 'woogly-woogly'. But if it doesn't sound funny to you people, go on speaking English as you see fit. You have my permission.
No, but seriously east of the pond kissing covers all bases, but usually implies something fairly chaste. Snogging is where it starts to get messy and unambiguous.
Damn, now I really hope I didn't scare her off.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:13 PM
We'll ease her in and hold off on the fruit basket for a bit.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:17 PM
I already held off on the fruit basket.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:20 PM
Obviously she should give ogged a ring.
Megan: email me for his phone number.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:22 PM
Is Megan Swedish?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:24 PM
As a lot of other people have said, consider branching out beyond Sacramento; the Bay Area is just chock full of eligible bachelors, I'm sure, and how long is the drive?
Scratch that.
Megan: email me for my phone number.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:24 PM
it would be great if you could learn to change your body language to signal availability and sexual interest, but as I'm sure you know, that's very hard to do if it doesn't come naturally
Hanging a handwritten sign reading "AVAILABLE FOR SEX" around your neck can overcome any amount of ambiguous body language.
Posted by argle | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:26 PM
Wait a minute... the post mentions the Bay Area, and there are a number of commenters who are Bay Area denizens. Is Tia playing Weiner here?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:26 PM
That didn't take long.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:27 PM
#6 isn't a bad idea. Date Wolfson for a while, Megan. I think I can guarantee that you'll never want another man.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:27 PM
9 to 6.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:28 PM
Having read Megan's posts, it must be said that she sounds like kind of a pain in the ass.
Posted by argle | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:29 PM
Having only looked at her picture, she looks like she's well out of my league.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:33 PM
We don't usually start insulting people until they've been around for a while, unless they have posting privileges.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:33 PM
7 would imply that I want to date Megan, and I only horndog the laydeez when I'm drunk. (I am pretty tired right now though.)
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:33 PM
I'll stay out of the comments for a while; I want to see where they go without me. I haven't done well with Internets dating, though I've put ads on both those sites.
In the January archives on my blog are the two ads I've placed on Craigslist in the past two years. One of them made Best-of-Craigslist. The Boyfriend Quiz got over a hundred responses, but it turned out to be a bad filter. I went on ten dates based on funny responses to the quiz. Only one of those men had a four-year degree and all he wanted to talk about was the process of dating on Craigslist. Four-year degrees aren't everything, but none of those men was right for me. The whole thing (screening emails, arranging logistics, meeting people, making pleasant conversation) was an amazing amount of work.
Still, since my current situation isn't what I want, I am happy for advice. I'll be reading along...
Posted by Megan | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:35 PM
Ditto to 14. And I'm not feeling it anyway. In fact, her disquisition on girl clothes made me think she would have been just right for ogged. Sigh....
SCMT, she's been single for a while, don't assume you have not chance.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:37 PM
I want to see where they go without me
They tend to go straight for the lowest common denominator.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:42 PM
I'd try a different internet dating service! Nerve or Salon have got to be better than Craigslist.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:45 PM
I think Tia's advice is excellent, and I'll second it. I'll also add the advice to stop worrying about if one is attractive to men, and just start flirting with, and then asking out, the guys one is attracted to. Hell, including the married guys and the guys with girlfriends. Don't date 'em--despite my own life, I don't think cheating is a great idea, and I don't think that's what she wants anyway--but surely some of them have single friends....
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:45 PM
lowest common denominator
This is as good a place as any to note that this is a completely stupid phrase. Things that are potentially interesting: the greatest common denominator; the lowest common multiple. A thing that is probably uninteresting: the lowest common denominator, which, for any n-tuple, is 1.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:46 PM
Nerve is Salon, JM, it's the same database.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:48 PM
What about sex chat rooms? Surprisingly fun, if you stumble upon someone who is capable of saying something other than "who here wants to suck my cok?"
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:52 PM
21: Supporting evidence for 10.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:52 PM
21: But is that not the deeper truth of the saying? The lowest common denominator is not interesting. No matter what you start with, it is the same. That is why going for the lowest common denominator is deprecated, for it destroys all traces of the original conversation. And the lowest common denominator is, of course, Borges' Ritual of the Phoenix, which as he says all words refer to whatever their literal signification may be.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:54 PM
21: Unfogged already reached singularity on the "Innocence" thread; we're beyond that now, I'd hoped.
22: Oh.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:55 PM
23: Who here wants to sex Mutombo?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:55 PM
23 brings back happy memories.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:56 PM
Your superior kung-fu has defeated me, Matt, but tell me this: why is your comment so maddeningly familiar?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:57 PM
Yeah, yeah, I repeat myself. Deal with it.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 9:58 PM
Things that are potentially interesting: the greatest common denominator; the lowest common multiple. A thing that is probably uninteresting: the lowest common denominator, which, for any n-tuple, is 1.
See what I'm saying, Megan?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:00 PM
29: What? Just because I'm ripping your style?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:01 PM
Actually, I think someone who pointed out that the "lowest common denominator" is always 1 in a sex-chat thread would totally be someone I'd want to sleep with.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:02 PM
No, I mean I had a moment of deja-vu with the Borges bit. As if I've seen that exact sentence before.
Tim, apostropher already pointed that out. Besides, I bet some women like pedantic guys.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:02 PM
30: That was my real introduction to Unfogged, is the thing. Back when 100 comments was a big big deal.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:02 PM
This isn't a sex-chat thread.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:03 PM
Also, regarding 16, though you should try to do as much possible winnowing before you go to the effort of meeting them (asking for a BA is not off-putting in an ad, and is a useful selection criterion; you can't be totally open to everything; it's a bad use of your energy), I know internet dating is frustrating and daunting at first, but it's kind of a numbers game, and if you go on some that don't work out it doesn't mean that the internet doesn't work in the long run. It means that finding a boyfriend is extraordinarily hard. (I don't think you should necessarily limit yourself to the net, but it's a valuable weapon in your arsenal.)
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:05 PM
Also, Weiner, my "style" doesn't involve omitting prepositions.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:05 PM
Since when?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:05 PM
35: The comment threads seem to be getting shorter lately. THey are disturbingly on topic.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:05 PM
39 to 36. Although it's also an appropriate response to 38.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:06 PM
35: Wait, I've been here longer than you? Really?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:07 PM
I bet some women like pedantic guys.
See point 7.
(There's no omitted preposition in 25, Mr. Lint Puppet. Check that 'to'.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:10 PM
Actually, b, you haven't.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:11 PM
I bet some women like pedantic guys
Pedantphiles.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:12 PM
42: I may have commented first, but you were a regular first.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:12 PM
I didn't think so.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:12 PM
Curses!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:12 PM
Not only am I going to offer sincere(ish) advice, I'll suggest that Megan try to meet potential mates in real life. She went on ten dates with internet randoms and managed not to hook up with any of them. New tactic needed! Are there any busy cafes chock-full of young people you could frequent?
Also: I totally disagree with her original post's position on "girl clothes." Tia's right that one shouldn't dress differently as part of a short-term strategy to get laid, but there's a broad category of clothing between "dressed to do chores" and "dressed to please the patriarchy."
Last: last time Mutombo was mentioned, I looked up his Wikipedia entry and concluded that I might not mind sexing Mutombo.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:13 PM
As J.L. Austin says, "real" is a very slippery word (in re 35).
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:14 PM
49: What's disturbing is that I actually started fantasizing about sexing Mutombo just for the Mineshaft love it would get me.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:17 PM
See point 7.
My first reaction to reading answer c to point 7 was, "wait, there were no comma splices there". And you know what? Based on my understanding of what comma splices are, there weren't!
Also, consider this clause: "if I were seduced by your explaining some difficult theory to me"—note that this leaves completely open whether or not she's likely to be seduced by such things; it only establishes what did not need establishment, that is, that if one is seduced, one has been seduced.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:17 PM
Maxim of cooperativeness?
Also, since it's a hypothetical designed to provoke a response, it's utterly non-problematic whether or not it would actually happen.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:21 PM
Someone tell Yglesias that we left him for a younger blog.
Posted by Dinosaur Barry Manilow | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:24 PM
Hanging a handwritten sign reading "AVAILABLE FOR SEX" around your neck
Too open to misinterpretation. For instance, who's to say that the sign is directed at each and every reader. Also, not to be crude (at the Mineshaft), but it doesn't describe precisely what is available for sex.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:25 PM
The sign is, obviously.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:26 PM
I have pseudonym issues.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:28 PM
Thinking it over, 40 is disturbingly true. Not a 200-comment thread on the front page AOTW.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:34 PM
58: is that a challenge or a lament?
Posted by Stanley | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:38 PM
The rate of posting has gone up, and there have been fewer posts about sex. That's what I chalk it up to.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:40 PM
Last Friday there were two threads that (eventually) went over 150 and one near 300. I suspect not having the blog in the morning was a huge factor; sometimes out here on Pacific time there are 100 comment threads by 9 or 10.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:41 PM
We are on topic quite a lot now, though. At least discussing the blog itself in a dating thread counts as going off topic. Thanks, b-girl!
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:43 PM
Why are the Yankees losing?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:55 PM
I was surprised by the number of google hits for "Dinosaur Barry Manilow".
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 10:58 PM
That reminds me of a game that was (perhaps) invented by the Yeti blog guy from that puzzle thread. It's called a Googlefuck. What it is is a google query that returns one and only one result.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:05 PM
I call those googlorphans.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:07 PM
Oh, and maybe that it had to take the form of "fucking [some word]". Details, details.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:08 PM
What about "Que sera, sera/ Whatever will be, will be"? Hating Doris Day is prohibited
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:11 PM
OK, I've read Megan's posts.
1. Sean is an ass - dress the way you would normally dress, behave as you normally would. You've dated people you liked before, so you can't really need much adjustment here.
2. Are there seriously no women who read this blog who are not thin waisted and thick breasted?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:18 PM
Actually I really do hate that song. I think we had to sing it in elementary school until I got sick of it. I feel a little guilty about hating it, though, b/c my grandmother liked it and would sing it sometimes.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:18 PM
62: you're welcome! And I succesfully derailed a thread. Woot!
Now can somebody recommend a band I should see, since I've never been to a concert?
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:19 PM
I liked The Man Who Knew Too Much but I really didn't like The Man Who Knew Too Much.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:19 PM
Now can somebody recommend a band I should see, since I've never been to a concert?
What kind of music do you like? Or do you just not listen to much music at all?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:23 PM
70: I don't see the relevance of 2. Nice try, though.
It did make me go back and re-read Megan's posts, though, and I have new advice: if guys in their 30s are pulling the "I'm tired of slutting around" line, aim your sights at guys in their 20s.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:23 PM
FWIW, my future wife and I met at a class we both went to on how to meet other single people.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:28 PM
So how is the 1934 version? Also, the Man Who Knew Too Little was surprisingly good. I second B's claim that guys my age are awesome.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:30 PM
I, too, have a high opinion of a subset of guys my age.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:31 PM
77, 78: Also, easy.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:32 PM
aim your sights at guys in their 20s.
We do have our certain qualities.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:32 PM
It's been a while since I've seen them. Both have similar set-ups, but in the 1934 version the husband and wife don't have such strictly differentiated gender roles. The woman in the 1934 version is skilled at shooting, not singing. And the 1934 version has a quite realistic looking urban shoot-out. I thought it was much better than the 1956 version, but then, I really loathed that movie.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:37 PM
#75: No. 2 was a joke based on a prior thread in which it seemed that every woman who regularly comments here complained about how hard it was to find clothing if one's breast were too large and one's waist too small. Something in one of Megan's posts said roughly the same.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:37 PM
74: I don't listen to that much music. When I was a kid, I didn't know who U2 were. I do rather like them, BTW. Mostly I like oldies stuff by dead people, e.g., Marvin Gaye and Nick Drake.
Coldplay is okay too, and I like the Shins which I discovered viaGarden State. I like pretty much everything on the soundtrack to High Fidelity.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:38 PM
82: Oh that's right, blame the ladies when you get caught. Mm-hm.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:39 PM
Coldplay is okay too
Are you sure you want to say that around here?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:40 PM
BG: I recommend seeing Born Heller or Mi and L'au if they come through your area.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04- 5-06 11:52 PM
BG: you should start a band and play a show.
Posted by Stanley | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 12:05 AM
Stanley: I would suck worse than Coldplay sux.
I also kind of like Dar Williams (I won't be Your Yoko Ono especially), but I was hoping for a true concert going experience (though I'll skip the drugs, apo) and I don't think that folk counts.
Besides, eb, you're a concert virgin too, IIRC.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 12:15 AM
IIRC, I suggested we go to a concert, geography willing.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 12:28 AM
89: I think apostropher suggested that the Unfoggedtariat (I like my spelling damn it!) chip in funds to send us to one, but nobody took him up on it.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 12:36 AM
They're all ingrates here.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 12:42 AM
Hey, that was going to be my line.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 12:45 AM
75: but men in their thirties seem to undergo this physiological change whereby they last for ages and ages during sex, as opposed to younger guys who...don't. leaving you lots of time for... more. more!
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 4:20 AM
I wonder if it's a physiological change, or just experience. Guys?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 5:54 AM
21 is just wrong. "Lowest common denominator" is another term for "least common multiple" of two fractions' denominators: the lowest common denominator of ½ and ⅔ is 6. Neither of those fractions can be expressed as having a denominator of 1 (unless the numerator is fractional, which is Not Standard Practice.)
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 5:58 AM
The mistake B-Wo makes in 21 seems to be that he is reading "divisor" in place of "denominator", and dealing only with integers. "Denominator" is more meaningful in the context of fractions, which is where it is commonly used.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 6:11 AM
It's wrong for me to be smirking at 95 and 96.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 6:30 AM
It's wrong for me to be smirking at 95 and 96.
You're the one who said you wanted to sex him based on 21, wrong tho it may be.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 6:36 AM
The only people I know who have had good luck meeting people online at match.com and the like are men. No clue if this is true, but I suspect there is a disproportionate amount of creepy men online (so the normal ones are lucky.) The people I know who have been happy online met through online forums or games rather than meat markets.
Dress so you feel comfortable and sexy, whatever form that takes. (If you're not one for skirts and stilettos, e.g., a) why would you want to attract guys who like skirts and stilettos ? and b) you'll be awkward and uncomfortable.)
Other than that, I'd recommend joining an activity or club and see what happens. If you meet someone, you'll at least have something in common, and if you don't, you'll at least have a new activity.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 6:36 AM
98: Now I want to sex you, too.
99: Hey! You know me, Cala! Surely "Adult Friend Finder" counts as an online meat market.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 6:45 AM
100: Hussy.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 6:51 AM
Isn't that common knowledge?
Also, "hussy" is such a great word.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 6:52 AM
'Hussy' is a great word. So is 'brazen'.
Oh, and to the guy on Megan's blog who posted that she should ask out guys because any advance he could make has been turned into an actionable sex offense:
Hey, jackass. Your problem isn't laws, it's that you try to ask out women by grabbing boobies. I promise you no one's been labeled a sex offender for asking someone out for coffee. Freak!
'
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 6:55 AM
I know a few couples (who span the continuum from normal to creepy) that met on Match or Nerve or something similar, but the signal-to-noise ratio is bad for the women, I'm told.
What about the old standby friend-of-a-friend approach? None of Megan's friends are stepping up to the plate to set her up?
Posted by Matthew Harvey | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:00 AM
Also, "hussy" is such a great word.
Yeah, that was the main motivation for my using it.
99: But presumably at least some of the women who hooked up with the men you know who made a good connection on match.com etc. also made a good connection on match.com etc.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:04 AM
(I like "slattern", too.)
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:07 AM
Also "trollop" and "minx."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:08 AM
And we really need to bring "coquette" back into general use.
Okay, I'm going to be late for work now.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:09 AM
Great words though they might be, they are all runners-up.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:35 AM
To bring in the advice I left on Megan's blog, so that you guys can rip it to shreds, I think she should make friends with more coupled-up people. Most of the couples I know have a couple of single friends on whose behalf they are vaguely looking for someone all the time -- if you make friends with a new couple, you get a hack at their pet singles, and the pet singles are prescreened because they're friends of someone you like.
I got married through a version of this -- when I got back from Samoa, Dr. Oops (my big sister, for those reading along at home) and her best friend from high school dropped Buck in my lap with a glowing review of "Not for either of us as a boyfriend, but a great guy. Try him out and see how it works."
Buck and I have a couple of single men we shop around to anyone who looks interesting (admittedly, I'm starting to give up on the British journalist. I, personally, like gawky sardonic potheads, but although everyone we've fixed him up with seems to like him, it never sticks.) Some good friends of ours have been trying to fix up Dr. Oops with a history blogger (they know him through non-internet means) whose name I don't want to mention for reasons of Google, for ages -- it's not working because she's resisting being fixed up, and I haven't given the guy glowing reviews, but the principle of the thing remains.
Don't most other couples do this sort of thing?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:36 AM
Making friends with more coupled-up people is also a good idea because it opens the door to three-way possibilities.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:39 AM
Dammit, TMK beat me to 95/96, which occurred to me as I was trying to get back to sleep this morning.
We are doing our part for minx.
And 103 is exactly right, except that the word 'calabat' should have been worked in somehow. (See also.) Megan, you should totally hang around here, we won't take out our sexual frustrations in the form of anti-feminist backlash.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:43 AM
93,94:
I had this change in my forties, after thinking about it (not that that means anything; I might have been thinking about it due to physical changes taking place). Because of the different timing from what mmf! suggests, I'd vote for experience. I suppose the interesting thing is that the motivation came from within, not because there had been complaints; it had irritated me, but I wouldn't say it was an obssession. It was however, very well received, with a sense of astonishment and wonder.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:46 AM
112 -- gotta get up pretty fuckin early in the morning to pwn me.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:47 AM
Hey Megan, what about tomatoe on Salon? Have you talked to him? He seems like a likely sort if you really don't care about height. Also seiujohn looks decent, good politics, certainly.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:47 AM
Re: 93. Not universally true. For some reason my control was never so good as when I was 18.
Posted by Chris | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:48 AM
I thought 110 was a great idea. (But you've already mentioned the history blogger's name, and we disapprove.)
Also, this just occurred to me: How about jdate? IIRC Megan is eligible, I know a couple that got together that way, and I suspect that it's more likely to garner serious offers, since having children relatively soon is a concern.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:48 AM
Hey, and wehrdo, too--there are lots of good men in your town!
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:49 AM
Also, women who dress like slobs = hott
Posted by Chris | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:49 AM
Jdate: So long as she isn't in NY. A lawyer acquaintance in the midst of a messy divorce is signed up there, and I, personally, would be willing to risk years of celibacy to avoid the risk of finding myself on a date with this guy.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:52 AM
119: me too.
108 is (oddly) making me wonder if anyone has ever used as a pick-up line, "Hey babe, want to come over to my place for some coq au vin?"
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 8:05 AM
re: 110
This sounds like good advice. For example, if you are looking for a divorced or widowed Korean woman in her 50's or 60's (some of dubious immigration status), my wife has several she would like to recommend. But maybe this is not what Megan is looking for.
Another traditional route is church (if you go). Not only can you meet people, but it is a way to meet the married women who (see 110) are shopping unmarried guys.
And, to end on an earnest note, I would like to contradict some of the conventional wisdom-based advice Megan got on her blog and (to an extent) here. Of course there must be something to the dress more girly, do the downcast eyes thing, they are standard fare. That said, I fell in love with the great love of my life because she talked about interesting (sometimes geeky) stuff, told lots of lame jokes and was just basically a totally cool person. She was almost totally non-girly. I am sure I must have seen her in high heels, but I do not remember ever doing so. Indeed, she possessed few of the traits I usually found attractive in women. But she was fun and honest and smart and genuine.
Getting to your quandry: I am typical guy. Sure that girly stuff is interesting, but I do not think that that is what closes the deal. Rather, I would start with showing a genuine interest in whatever guy(s) you like and letting them get to know you. Simple as that. So if there is a guy out there you think is a good guy, just do the things you would do to anyone, man or woman, to show that you like him--say hello with a smile, find reasons to talk to him, buy him a cup of coffee, find something you both are interested in and talk about it. Really, it's a low tech approach, but I think you might get more solid results.
On review, this sounds corny. But I think it's true.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 8:07 AM
93 Et al.
For me the change was pretty much instantaneous and, it seems to me, coterminous with having finally stumbled on the right partner. Which, I guess, is a form of experience.
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 8:08 AM
Since in principle I've always favored a no-nonsense everyday-self presentation, I've tried to imagine from the point of view of the science guy I once was what might confuse me about Megan, and what she might do to show interest without falseness.
It occurs to me I never had much success with my, or interest in other people's "broadcast messages," which dressing hott is for Megan; at best it shows a side of you that might not have been seen before. I tried to get the attention of particular people whom I found interesting. Once in a while, the way you act while attempting to interest one person interests somebody else.
And interest is the key word: reserve, speaking with care, obvious attention to a person's reaction and close interest in what they say, are obvious no matter what style you feel comfortable using.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 8:11 AM
I see 122 tracks me very closely, not for the first time. It's the "National Service Medal" brand-approved flavor of advice, I guess.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 8:15 AM
#123:
Instantaneous sure must have intensified your relationship--sounds like you'd had the impression you'd previously been with the wrong species. About 2/3ds the way (so far) through a long-term relationship, for no discernable reason, in my case.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 8:21 AM
124 gets it so right: To be interesting one must be interested. It's a two way street though.
The greatest love of my life did drop me stone cold with her looks. I knew in that instant that she was cool, funny, bright, kind and honest. I do remember what she was wearing but, apart from the fact that I think she would look good if she were wearing sack cloth, it was so not the clothes that did the damage, nor her figure. Eyes. The eyes have it. The verbal communication then was about trading mutual interests and playing a mental snap game.
Remember though, non-verbal communication rates are somwhere around 10^7 bips, whereas verbal rates are a power of 5 lower.
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 8:28 AM
I gotta say, Sean's advice was sound. Tia's was, too, but flirting is a skill, and must be learned and practiced.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 8:31 AM
126: Yes I might have thought a little more about that word before using it.
Thing is, though, up until then I had had no idea of anything being amiss. But then that is probably a common story.
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 8:32 AM
And what Austro said about the eyes. If you figure out how to flirt with your eyes, no one cares what you're wearing.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 8:39 AM
Oh, and to the guy on Megan's blog who posted that she should ask out guys because any advance he could make has been turned into an actionable sex offense:
"Caliban" chose the right name, though.
I can't give any advice that hasn't been given. I'm notoriously bad at looove advice anyway. I just continue to be delighted at how the internet turns the entire world into one big college dormitory.
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 8:50 AM
I gotta say, Sean's advice was sound
Joe, you are sooo not allowed to date-marry-reproduce delightful little munchkins with Becks anymore. Sean's an ass. He's clearly a good friend of Megan's, and I'm sure that he has hidden depths, yadda yadda yadda. But if he doesn't strike her as an ass in this particular area, that's part of the problem. The guy she thinks she wants is not the guy she actually wants.
Usually, there's a pretty obvious solution to apparent market mismatch situations - lower your standards.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:07 AM
lower your standards.
I don't know about this -- who wouldn't rather be single than be with someone they weren't excited about? I can see re-examining your standards, in case you wanted to decide that you might possibly be attracted to someone other than a 6'5" left-handed red-head with six fingers on the right hand, but not just globally lowering them.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:11 AM
I have to admit, whenever people discuss these things, they always seem impossibly picky, serious and whiny about it. I realise that's uncharitable, but ...
I still maintain that American dating culture is pathologically wierd and leads to all these problems.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:14 AM
SCMT, I think Joe was closer to right than you were in 70. The fact of the matter is that there is behavior that signals receptiveness to men that Megan is probably not exhibiting right now, to her detriment. If she's not going to keep on with the web it would be for the best if she learns it. It doesn't have to be a particular style of femme, and IDP got at something important with interest--two of my best friends, Clementine and [oh, hell, she needs a food-related pseud, lemme think], are natural dude magnets because they're a) purty and b) telegraph natural interest in the person they talk with. They make eye contact, they smile, and they ask lots and lots of questions.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:19 AM
One difference between the Mineshaft and a traditional advice column: I'll bet this post generates at least 5 at-least-tolerable dates for her. Minimum.
Posted by Chris | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:21 AM
I'm just skimming because I came in late, but Tia's point #4 is the difference between getting laid and not getting laid. The problem is, if I go to a bar and some guy talks to me, I am automatically skeptical. Has he read Pynchon? Does he know Jesus was a homonecrophiliac in the gnostic gospels? Is he picky about pizza? These are vital pieces of information, and on top of that, I am not particularly in the mood when surrounded by strangers.
However, when at a bar with one stranger about whom I already know several vital pieces of information, and about whom I have already practiced having dirty thoughts, it is quite simple to turn a few drinks into breakfast. (Or, whatever, a "relationship" if that's your bag.)
I highly recommend the internet. You'll go out with a few losers and then you'll figure out how to craft a profile that makes losers cower in fear.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:27 AM
Tim, can you send me a memo or something so I can keep track of who you're pimping me out to each week? I can't keep up. At least Weiner was consistent.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:29 AM
133: I tend to think, per #134, that we're not usually very good at sorting out what's really important to us in another person at the outset. It's hard to reexamine your standards outside the context of specific experiences.
But, on the other hand, I think you're totally right. So, as might be expected, I don't know.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:30 AM
For example, most people I know do the 'dating' thing e.g. meals, cinema, coffee, etc. after they've at least kissed the person, and usually after they've slept with 'em.
These kind of 'what if he doesn't match my 18 point checklist' anxieties and the quasi-formal assessment process that always gets discussed whenever Americans bring these things up just seem wierd and forced and unnatural.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:38 AM
#138: It was Joe before. It was always Joe. I thought it would be Joe forever. I am so disappointed.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:38 AM
Yes! Joe forever!
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:39 AM
That's interesting Tim, but I'd also say that intuition can say a lot that facts don't. I met my bf on Nerve, and lots of "facts" about him didn't match up with what I was looking for. He had kids, he wasn't divorced yet, he was too old, he was also a lit PhD (my fear of competitiveness), and, at the time, he was on anti-depression meds. All of this sounds like a miserable time, but he seemed casual about the date, met me somewhere interesting, laughed at all my jokes, and waited till we were at the train to make out with me. He just seemed nice without being clingy, which is pretty rare in NYC men.
It's true that there's only so much you can get from a few facts and talking on the phone (and I was lied to a lot by guys), but I think you can get a sense of whether someone's a good person or not.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:40 AM
Lest it be forgotten, I met Graham on Nerve.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:42 AM
134, 140:
I think you're absolutely right that we're all pathological about this, and I've put up a post above on what I think is wrong.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:43 AM
(Suddenly surprised that we have gotten nearly to 150 comments without anybody recommending speed dating.
Posted by Teh Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:43 AM
141: What's Mutombo? Chopped liver?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:45 AM
Here is the thing I discovered about myself, then started to notice about similar self-styled too-cool/smart/wise/clever-for-school types, of which it sounds like Megan is one.
Used to be, I tended to not go for the traditional route of trying to make myself more attractive in a general way, because I figured, I don't want to be attractive to just anyone; the Right Person will see how attractive I am, underneath! Not to mention, those other plebes don't deserve my extra effort, anyway!
This is obviously madness. Because then, the people I turned out to be attracted to didn't necessarily find me attractive, because I wasn't used to putting out a general I-am-attractive vibe. Once I discovered that I liked someone, I had to then switch gears and try to play a whole different game, and sometimes it worked, but usually the you-are-a-friend ship had long since sailed.
It's much more useful, I've found, to make a conscious effort to be as attractive as you can be from the get-go (this isn't about primping or clothes or whatever; more about throwing off a flirty/sexy/romantic vibe more than you might be used to), and those special people who are good enough for your picky self will already be interested, because they see you as a potential mate right off the bat (mate for whatever, I mean), rather than having to go the long way around of getting to know someone, THEN starting to take it to a flirty place, THEN seeing whether the flirting is returned, etc.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:51 AM
OK, then. Joe forever!
This discussion does lead me to wonder if the fall of the meddling matchmaker in real life is an unfortunate side-effect of our more disconnected society. While I'm kind of relieved not to have my family trying to set me up with people, I doubt they'd do much worse than I have myself.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:53 AM
Joe, he speaks teh true.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:53 AM
Wait, so Joe is cheating on Jackmormon with Becks? Or the other way 'round?
Posted by Teh Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:55 AM
chrikey, 150 comments (plus god knows how many on the other site) and none of you lot have worked out that 1) she wants to fuck her friend Sean, 2) she might or might not know this, 3) she might or might not realise that this is her way of asking. The world is in a hell of a state if I am the last one left with a scrap of feminine intuition round here.
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:57 AM
Jackmormon isn't so Jack in all the Mormon ways, so it all works out.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:58 AM
152: ...Huh. I thought someone had made that point early in the thread. But on review it seems like I'm wrong.
Posted by Teh Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:00 AM
149: I've often thought that hey, I'm busy, I don't have time for dating, my parents know me well enough not to pick a horrible person, if I had veto power, what would be so bad about an arranged marriage?
Then I realize my dad hates all men as potential Daughter Corruptors®, and then I sober up, and then I procrastinate in other ways.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:05 AM
none of you lot have worked out that 1) she wants to fuck her friend Sean
I just assumed that either A) she already had or B) Sean was gay.
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:08 AM
152: I assumed that if she wasn't an idiot she'd thought of that already, and that Sean was either gay, married, definitively neither attractive nor attracted to her, or an ex who she'd stayed friends with but didn't want to date. If I'm wrong about that, you're right. Megan, ask Sean out.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:09 AM
gay, married, definitively neither attractive nor attracted to her, or an ex who she'd stayed friends with but didn't want to date
Sounds like a roll call of my former partners. Or an updated "something borrowed, something blue" list.
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:13 AM
153: Your cheatin' heart!
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:18 AM
I had the "She should go for Sean" thought, but I tend to discount the truth value of things I learned from romantic comedies so severely that they've moved to teh false.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:39 AM
138: Joe, let's you and me set up a flirting college for straight people. As a sideline, I bet we can write personal ads for a small fee.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:43 AM
I wouldn't presume to be even in the same league with you, flirtwise, b.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:48 AM
Maybe I could be your T&A.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:50 AM
161 - Sign me up! I'm sure I could use it.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:54 AM
That comment is awesome, Becks.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:58 AM
Matches up with what Megan says about flirting with men in the linked post, too:
"Do that with men… I could never… they would totally get the wrong id- HEY!"
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 11:21 AM
165 - I've got an even better one for you, Joe. I went out with someone for a while earlier this year (I don't tell you guys everything -- shocking, I know) and he told me that it took him about an hour to work up the nerve to kiss me because he couldn't figure out if I wanted him to or not. This hour that he's not sure whether I dig him or not? Is with both of us sitting on the couch back at my apartment after our date. I, apparently, can even invite a guy back to my place and still not transmit enough signals to let him know it's OK to make a move. Wooooo! Hook 'em!
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 11:32 AM
Becks, were you giving him the eyes? Give him the eyes!
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 11:39 AM
Give him the eyes!
Or failing that, the tongue.
Posted by Teh Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 11:40 AM
I think that's got to be on him to a certain extent. I have a similar story which I won't share the details of because it was told in confidence, and the failure to appreciate similar signals appears completely inexplicable.
(Hell, Buck and I have a semi-similar story; I was shy about making the first move, and he was equally shy. The first time we kissed was well after midnight after I'd been sitting on his couch, dressed in something ridiculously sexy (remember for about six months in 1994-95, women were actually wearing catsuits?) for hours.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 11:42 AM
You know what also works, Becks? Whatever the conversation is, just stop it with "Hold on; you have something on your cock."
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 11:44 AM
What's a catsuit? Like an actual Hallowe'en-type costume with tail and whiskers, or something less elaborate?
Posted by Teh Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 11:44 AM
1. Sean is not an ass and I do not want to sleep with him. (If any of you are looking for a hot hapa professor at Vassar, though, I would be happy to refer you.) We settled the idea of fucking long, long before Sean and I were good enough friends that he would critique my appearance.
2. I have often thought that my friends are not doing nearly enough work to pimp me out. On the other hand, we all tend to meet new men simultaneously, when he shows up at a pick-up game.
3. I am smiley and friendly and make eye contact with everyone. Remember? I do that shit with homeless men and lesbians. But the boys I like can't tell that I am trying to do that more with them.
4. My team and I were throwing "Who will fuck Dikembe?" around a tournament party one year. It was fun being on both sides of that.
5. I decided at one point that I wasn't going to sleep with anyone unless he wanted to have sex with me more than he wanted to have sex. That might be part of the problem, but I'm still not getting enough opportunities that I have to use that criteria.
6. I could probably stand to dress better.
Still listening...
Posted by Megan | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 11:48 AM
Stretchy allover onepiece garment. No tail or whiskers, but otherwise what Catwoman would wear. Trust me, for about six months they were totally normal.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 11:48 AM
167: At one point I decided that the woman sitting on her couch, toying with a pair of scissors, was sending a non-verbal signal not to try it.
Posted by Ttam R. | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 11:51 AM
Still listening...
Oh, for the love of Saint Pete, people. Why do I hand my blog over to you if you can't even set me up with a hot woman who's practically begging for a date? I have to rely on Wolfson to have my back?
Look, Megan, I'm willing to stipulate that you're interested in me; no dressing up or complicated signalling required. Email Wolfson for my number.*
*Why Wolfson? Because he's a huge gossip, and it will make him happy.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 11:54 AM
No tail or whiskers
Pointy ears? (Does the all-over garment include a head covering a là Flash's outfit?)
Posted by Teh Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 11:55 AM
I have a similar story which I won't share the details of because it was told in confidence, and the failure to appreciate similar signals appears completely inexplicable.
No way to know for sure, but I guess that this might be the story I told you. And since you know it, I may as well tell the Internet (plus, after 25 years, one should be able to laugh at such things) since you are looking for examples of male cluelessness (mine, in this case).
When I was a young lieutenant stationed in Hawaii, I was dating a captain who worked with a friend of mine. We had gone to dinner several times and ran together to train for the Honolulu Marathon. However, we had not engaged in an overtly romantic activities, including kisses good night (hey, you have to be sure of your ground before you kiss a superior officer).
One Saturday, we went hiking up in the mountains. At the end of the day, we went back to her apartment, where she cooked dinner. Since we were wet and dirty from the hike, she suggested that I take a shower, and wear one of her bathrobes until she could wash and dry my clothes. She also showered, and instead of getting dressed, she wore a towel. I guess I should have taken all of this as a hint, but as a gentleman, I thought that I should wait for some more explicit signal.
While dinner was cooking, we were sitting on her couch and she said something about her feet being sore. I mustered my courage and asked if she wanted me to rub her feet. She agreed.
Sadly, soon after I started, a timer went off signaling that dinner was done. We stopped, she served dinner, we ate, I got dressed and went home. The topic never came up between us again (although I did kiss her goodnight at the end of a date a few dates later).
In retrospect, I guess I should have assumed that further advances would be welcome, However, like many guys, I wanted very much to avoid giving offense (and I am old enough that there was an assumption that unwanted romantic advances were offensive rather than something to be politely declined). LizardBreath, on hearing the story, more reasonably opined that I was merely an idiot.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 11:56 AM
Yeah, see, it was the 'foot rub' detail that had me rolling on the floor laughing and pointing.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 11:58 AM
ogged! You're back!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 11:58 AM
Now we see what will bring ogged back to the blog! How many women would have to sleep with you for you to return to blogging permanently?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 11:59 AM
I thought resetting the Tivo was what got him out of blogging.
Posted by Teh Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 12:02 PM
I'd have suggested she look you up, ogged, but then I remembered that you don't recommend dating Iranian men.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 12:09 PM
ogged, if you only knew how many e-mail message I've sent lamenting that you reset the TiVo so we can't set you up with her. Megan, call ogged.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 12:14 PM
Also (disregard surrounding text).
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 12:18 PM
I mean, TMK, that maybe we could dangle the promise of sex in front of him in return for blogging.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 12:19 PM
Holy ogged, it's cow!
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 12:38 PM
Scratch that, reverse it.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 12:38 PM
You know she does sound strangely good for you, ogged - clearly outdoorsy, and - if she agrees to the date - she knows you're not. Might still be a squeaker, though.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 12:47 PM
Megan:
Some relevant details here and here.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 12:51 PM
And she hates girly clothes, too.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 12:51 PM
She hasn't mentioned having the bum of an 8-year-old boy, so the jury's still out.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 1:13 PM
We'll know the date worked out if, the next morning, ogged has a post up at Megan's site.
Posted by SomeCalledMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 1:18 PM
So THAT'S how he ended up on Drum's blog.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 1:19 PM
Damn you Joe!
Posted by Teh Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 1:20 PM
170, 178:
I don't have a problem with this reticence and hesitation; if the captain was unwilling to tell you she wanted to go further, then she had dominance and gender-role issues, imo. This is par for the course with respectful men, and if it's frustrating for the woman, as I'm sure it is, then they have to summon up the will to address it. Hell, my mother has a similar story about my dad; what struck her in retrospect was how close she came to missing, how she didn't want to do it, and that they'd never have had a relationship if she hadn't.
It seems odd to me that this should confuse women as much as it apparently does, but the notion that women don't realize some very interested men need a more explicit go-ahead, and that those just might be the ones you most want to go ahead, seems to me to be an instance of head-slapping naivete just as much as the man who doesn't pick up "clear" signals.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 1:32 PM
176: We didn't try to set you up with her because we thought you HAD a new girlfriend, Ogged. Is your Tivo not working again?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 1:33 PM
I do not want to sleep with him
I know that's your theory; I'm just saying it's not true.
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 1:34 PM
I dunno, Megan. Ogged can be kind of a pain in the ass. I'm the real prize around here, provided you're looking for a married guy who lives 3,000 miles away from you (and really, who isn't?).
Call me.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 2:19 PM
It seems odd to me that this should confuse women as much as it apparently does, but the notion that women don't realize some very interested men need a more explicit go-ahead, and that those just might be the ones you most want to go ahead, seems to me to be an instance of head-slapping naivete just as much as the man who doesn't pick up "clear" signals.
I'm glad someone said this. (Also, we're back to a 200 comment thread.)
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 2:52 PM
76:FWIW, my future wife and I met at a class we both went to on how to meet other single people.
I can't express in words how awesome that is.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 2:56 PM
I don't know whether in the above ogged is showing serious game or serious lack thereof. On the one hand, he got us all to spend a lot of time trying to make friends with Megan and give her good advice, and now we're all going to vouch for him. (As in 199.) On the other hand, e-mail her yourself already! Damn! Haven't we been over this? Many times?
(In all o-earnestness, I can understand how it would be hard to cold-call someone under these circumstances. Megan, ogged is a great guy, and from what I've read on your blog the two of you are soulmates. Which may mean you have no chance of getting off the ground, but....)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 3:10 PM
FWIW, my future wife and I met at a class we both went to on how to meet other single people.
I forgot to comment in response to 76 when it first came up. Frederick appears to be talking about someone who will one day (in the "future") be his wife. If she knows this, we normally use the word "fiance" to describe her relationship to you. If she doesn't know it, we normally use the words "stalking victim" for it.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 3:16 PM
Fiancée, lint puppet.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 3:19 PM
I didn't feel like typing é, the other error is sloppiness rather than laziness.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 3:24 PM
178: Thank you, Idealist! Until now, I thought I probably held some kind of all-time record for missing obvious signals.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 6:32 PM
Seconding DaveL:
In college, a hot woman I was interested in invited me up to her room "for cookies", and kept telling me "I'm so drunk!" even though she only seemed slightly tipsy. I was confused by this, but thought, "if she's drunk, I shouldn't make any moves right now. I'll come back tomorrow and ask her on a date." Then I ate my cookies and went home.
When I went back the next day she seemed really angry and didn't want anything to do with me. It took me quite a while to figure out why.
I've been embarassed about this for years, but Idealist's story made me feel a little better.
Posted by Big Ben | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 6:57 PM
Except that both you and Idealist were picking up on the signals, just needed a more explicit go ahead than these women were willing to give, even though they were willing to do quite elaborate things instead, which at least in your case left them just as vulnerable and humiliated. In both cases these stories leave me thinking, "What's wrong with these women?" I don't think either of you did anything wrong and I think I would have done the same. Yes, I have gone forward when correctly interpreting signals, so it comes down to your sense of the situation. And that bit about being tipsy is just creepy.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:12 PM
The situation I'm mostly thinking of involved (1) while out in a group of friends, extracting a promise that I would walk her back to her apartment to protect her from the bogeyman; (2) immediately upon entering apartment, pulling her arms inside her sweatshirt, removing her bra, and commenting on how much better that felt; and (3) finding a reason to open the cupboard containing her condom supply. I was interested, but just not sure she was. It sort of seemed like maybe she was trying to tell me something, but she had a boyfriend in another state. I was still naive enough to think that a woman who had a boyfriend couldn't possibly be interested, so I figured I must be misunderstanding what was going on.
The one that really hurts was less obvious. I'm still not completely sure. But looking back, I kind of think that a woman whom I was hopelessly infatuated with for a long time may have been just as hopelessly infatuated with me, and that's just sad.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:30 PM
"if she's drunk, I shouldn't make any moves right now. I'll come back tomorrow and ask her on a date."
Good on you, Big Ben.
I'm so glad we're brainstorming better ways of signalling sexual interest in the thread above. "I'm incapacitated, please take advantage of me" is a Really Lame And Unfair way to get a guy into bed. If she was pissy about it the next day, I'll bet she was feeling a bit ashamed of herself.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:34 PM
I think she was feeling more scorned and disgusted with my cluelessness than ashamed. In her social group (she mostly dated football players and such) "I'm so drunk" was apparently a standard unambiguous mating call.
Like you said, it's another good reason to find better ways of signalling sexual interest, because that one is unacceptable for all sorts of reasons.
Posted by Big Ben | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 7:49 PM
If she weren't feeling ashamed, she should have been.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 8:13 PM
DaveL, that has to be the award winner.
Posted by Matthew Harvey | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 8:24 PM
I think she was feeling more scorned and disgusted with my cluelessness than ashamed.
Then she was teh lame. Or she expressed in her behavior a socialization into conventions that are teh lame.
Either way, you behaved with decency in the face of temptation. If I could make it stick, I would adjudicate this memory as unembarrassing and in fact honorable.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 8:26 PM
213, nah, if she'd been dressed in a towel and asking for a footrub, I'd have totally caught on.
And I agree with 212 and 214. I remember fraternity guys joking that the mating call of a sorority girl was "I'm so wasted." Doing your part to combat that idea was an admirable thing.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 8:34 PM
I read Megan's blog this morning and thought "Wow. Ogged would be so into her!" Given that I haven't a clue who Megan or Ogged really are, that's really funny.
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 8:56 PM
While I of course agree that the signals she was giving out were fucked up in several different ways, I still can't feel proud about my inability to read them. I would have done the right thing even if I had understood what was going on, but I'm not sure doing the right thing because of cluelessness is praiseworthy.
I guess it's honorable (but only in the "what do you want, a cookie?" sense) that I never considered taking advantage of a drunk woman to be an option, but the fact was that she wasn't really that drunk and was actively trying to seduce me (in an inappropriate way) and I was too dumb to notice.
It's good that I reinforced the idea that pretending to be drunk to get laid isn't always effective, but I'm afraid the message that got sent was not "decent guys won't sleep with you if you do that" but rather "clueless guys won't sleep with you if you do that." I'd rather it had been intentional.
Posted by Big Ben | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:00 PM
I dunno, Ben. It sounds like the point is, you were clueless that "I'm so drunk" = "please make out with me now." That seems like something that more men *should* be clueless about, you know? It would be a better world if drunkness *weren't* associated with sexual availability.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:10 PM
I'd rather be principled than clueless, but of course you're right that being clueless is better than buying into some really bad cultural norms.
Posted by Big Ben | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 9:35 PM
Everyone, this is a private issue. I have permission from both parties to redact this entire argument and plan to do so. Please move the discussion along.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:08 PM
BEFORE I HAVE A FUCKING NERVOUS BREAKDOWN.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:09 PM
Go ahead. Sorry.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:09 PM
Is this where I mention, more on topic, that last week I was having dinner with a friend and when he said he thought he knew a few women he might be able to set me up with, all he could come up with were women who were already married?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:11 PM
Why, yes. Yes it is.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:13 PM
Whoa. Maybe it's a good thing that my honey hasn't yet followed links into this place...
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:24 PM
I don't think it was intentional. I think he offered to set me up before thinking of anyone in particular, because when he then did think of someone he stopped and said, "oh, that wouldn't work, she's married." But that happened more than once.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:32 PM
I could really go for some cello music right now.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04- 6-06 10:33 PM
It would be a better world if drunkness *weren't* associated with sexual availability.
I'm having quite the Emma Goldman "if I can't dance I don't wanna be part of your revolution" moment right now.
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 2:02 AM
217-219: Yay for Big Ben and absolutely appropriate cluelessness (which in this case does, I think, reflect principles on some level, or at least the absence of bad principles.) As you said, of course, 'whaddaya want, a cookie?' but given that you did, in face, get some cookies out of the deal, I'd say they were appropriate.
DaveL and Idealist, now, just should have been paying better attention.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 8:20 AM
How about this anecdote: When I was 18 I was working (as a PBX operator at Sears) with a woman who infatuated me. She talked about sex a lot and asked me to give her back rubs. So I (inexperienced in matters of love) figured I was maybe picking up on a signal there. I made an advance, not a very smooth one if I recall, it was something along the lines of asking her if she'd have sex with me, and was turned down flat. But we continued to hang out together, and she continued to talk about sex and ask me for back rubs. Well I'm pretty flummoxed at this point (and want really bad to terminate my state of inexperience) so I started trying to convince myself maybe her "no" a few weeks back had either "meant yes" or transformed itself magically into "yes". And I made another move, a non-verbal one, like if I am remembering right I was (in her apartment) giving her one the requested back rubs and moved in to kiss the back of her neck. Possibly there was contact of my lips with her skin, I don't remember. Well: she got really mad and threw me out, and we were not friends any longer after that. Wha' happen? Am I to blame? Is she?
Posted by Teh Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 8:30 AM
I agree that these threads, and the one on B's earlier in the week, have been terrific. We've got to stop pretending to be well-mannered predators, when the reality is more complicated, more difficult and more respectable/admirable, if only we confess to it. What have we got to lose?
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 8:32 AM
231 me.
230: It keeps coming. Say it brothers! Testify!
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 8:34 AM
re: 229
True, I was just clueless. She was a very nice woman, and my cluelessness probably made her feel bad. Oh well.
I agree that Big Ben sets an example for us all. Once, a woman I liked, but had not actively been planning to proposition (for a number of complicated reason) came on to me at a party and one thing led to another, as it will. Later, she told me that she had been drinking a whole lot more than I had realized, and that she in fact was very drunk when she came one to me. While had no idea, and while she never accused me of taking advantage of her or acting improperly (indeed, that night was the beginning of a romance, which while it ended very badly, was very special), I still am ashamed of not reallizing that she was not in a condition fully to realize what she was doing that night. So, young fellows, try to be like Big Ben in this regard, not me. Feeling guilty sucks.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 8:35 AM
(Also, is my anecdote the exact opposite of IdeaList's or not quite?)
Posted by Teh Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 8:36 AM
And, what IdeaList said about feeling guilty. One of the worst feelings floating around in my psyche is the knowledge that I forced myself on a woman in my dormitory who was not really into it.
Posted by Teh Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 8:39 AM
(Also, is my anecdote the exact opposite of IdeaList's or not quite?)
Pretty close. Although I must say that the woman in yours was just plain wrong. No means no, of course, but that still does not mean that she had any right to be mad at you for making a reasonable assumption about her intentions.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 8:40 AM
230, 234:
Much more her than you, I'd say. I wouldn't worry about this, and it's hard to stay friendly when both or either of you is aware of having behaved badly.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 8:41 AM
Much more her than you, I'd say. I wouldn't worry about this, and it's hard to stay friendly when both or either of you is aware of having behaved badly.
Thanks, but whatever else is clear, she did nothing wrong. The relationship ended heartbreakingly badly for unrelated reasons, but again her conduct was blameless.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 8:45 AM
Big Ben resonates with me, although I think in his situation, while principled would be fine, I'd rather be clueless than appalled. But I could write the book on clueless - when I got together with my much loved SO many years ago, I genuinely didn't notice anything was happening until she started taking her clothes off.
But even assuming most people are a bit brighter than me, I don't see the point of all these subtle hints. If you want to get laid, why not ask politely? Does anybody find it offensive any more to be told civilly that somebody finds them attractive? And "No, thank you" is not a ball busting demolition of somebody's character. On the other side of the equation, I accept that there are still men who get freaked out by women taking a sexual initiative, but isn't it a good idea to weed them out at an early stage?
Posted by chris | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 8:46 AM
233:
I'm still not convinced you were wrong, or that she doesn't have just as much reason to regret not closing the deal as you. And if as I surmised above she needs on some level to follow, to be lead and dominated, then good for you not going there.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 8:47 AM
238 -- I think I don't pay was talking about the woman I had a bad experience with, not yours.
Posted by Teh Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 8:48 AM
238 was to TMK, 240, I hope more nuanced, was to you.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 8:49 AM
230: I'd call that unambiguously bad behavior on her part. I feel comfortable saying that because I have, back in college, behaved badly in pretty much precisely that way, and I still feel lousy about it. (Wasn't getting any attention from anyone I wanted, was getting attention from someone I liked a great deal, but didn't want, deliberately invited a pass, I'm not exactly sure why, and then didn't accept it when it came. Sorry about that, Craig, and I was very glad to run into you, happily married and apparently not holding the incident against me, last year. My only excuse is having been 18 and confused at the time.)
(And, you know, not to confuse the whole date-rape issue, when I say I behaved badly, and that TMK's friend behaved badly, that in no way means that TMK or Craig was entitled to do anything other than what they did, which was back off. That doesn't change the fact that inviting the pass was, in both cases, a mean and inconsiderate thing to do.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 9:25 AM
230 can also draw us into the delightful confession of rejected passes. Who wants to go first?
Posted by Matthew Harvey | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 9:29 AM
In case clarification is needed, Idealist has referred to encounters with 2 different women. My remarks in 240 are addressed to the issue with the first one, "the Captain." Your own analysis of your relations with the second one (Tenille?) leaves nothing to be said.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 9:31 AM
239: Thouh I've been known to say, "just ask," myself, the reality is that ppl need hints and non-verbal clues because we *are* afraid of rejection, and maybe b/c sexual desire is so stigmatized (women: "he'll think I'm a slut!" men: "she'll think i'm a jerk!"). So we dance around trying to find out if we'll be rejected when we finally get to the point of making an umambiguous move.
Plus, blurting something out before it's time can make the *other* person uncomfortable. It's like any other social interaction: try not to make other people feel uncomfortable around you, try not to embarrass yourself. Hence, the need for flirting that allows plausible deniability in case the other person isn't interested.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 9:46 AM
Idealist has referred to encounters with 2 different women
Player!
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 9:51 AM
The drinking issue, as in Ideal's story about Tenille, various unAmerican types talking about standard partner-finding behavior, and prior discussions of date-rape is a little complicated.
Myself, I think that given the reality that lots of people choose to drink socially, and that drinking encourages people to make different choices than they might sober (not necessarily things they mightn't want to do sober, just things that they wouldn't have actually done sober), that what a woman drinking actively chooses to do is on her, whether or not she's drunk.
The whole 'taking advantage of a drunk woman' issue isn't so much talking about someone drunk enough to have flung caution to the winds, it's about (IMO, anyway) not coercing someone who doesn't want to have sex, but is too drunk to be able to successfully enforce her refusal.
There are reasons to be cautious here: confusion is possible, and no one wants to get close to the line, but it doesn't sound as if Ideal was anywhere near that line with Tenille, nor that the standard drunken-Brits-snogging-after-a-night-at-the-pub is near that line either. (Do people really say 'snogging'?)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 9:58 AM
Yes. Why wouldn't they?
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 10:02 AM
246
So we dance around trying to find out if we'll be rejected when we finally get to the point of making an umambiguous move.
OK, but after the dance, make one, or don't be surprised if your ambiguity is misinterpreted, is all I'm saying.
Posted by chris | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 10:05 AM
To an American, or at least to this American, it's an incredibly funny sounding word. Sort of like saying that normal British slang for kissing someone was 'woogly-woogly'. But if it doesn't sound funny to you people, go on speaking English as you see fit. You have my permission.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 10:05 AM
251
Kissing is kissing. Snogging is snogging. I would demonstrate the difference, but you're 3000 miles away.
Posted by chris | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 10:07 AM
And, you know, generally all prickly and hostile. Not that I don't appreciate the offer.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04- 7-06 10:09 AM
No, but seriously east of the pond kissing covers all bases, but usually implies something fairly chaste. Snogging is where it starts to get messy and unambiguous.
Posted by chris |