This is the straw that broke the back of that particular camel for you?
So is this post a continuation of the theme "it's important to make sure that women are really well informed on the subject of how they suck and should feel bad"?
But that leaves the big window of 18-21 where the data say women are attractive but still too old for the Derb.
I'd like to see how the curve decays through with the woman's age. It's hard to believe a 50 year old man would perceive a significant difference between a woman who's 20 and one who's 25.
This thread is not going to go well, is it?
But you can see how old people are on the site, right? I'd be more interested in the data if they were rating pics without knowing the age.
Derb didn't get a shoutout this Toast piece, but I'll bet some of you could manage.
8: If they could see the age, I would have expected the creepers to round up.
"Men Say Women 'Too Inhibited' When Their BAC Is Below .08."
8: Or if they were given incorrect ages.
There's no selection problem in a sample of people on a dating website, right? Especially not when a large proportion of the full population may not be participating owing to monogamy. It's practically veldt.com
Also I'm sorry to see "troll your own site" is back as a theme here.
It's nice to be put in my place. Sure did used to be hotter.
That's not even "half your age plus seven years."
Men have retrogressed.
I thought it was supposed to be square root plus twelve years.
Also I'm sorry to see "troll your own site" is back as a theme here.
Back??
"it's important to make sure that women are really well informed on the subject of how they suck and should feel bad"?
"troll your own site"
I probably shouldn't engage, but...
My litany of cruelly trolling posts have been:
--It's not a good idea to get shitfaced around guys you don't know.
--If a guy hits you, you should leave him.
--Hey, look at this OKCupid data.
Maybe everyone doesn't agree with each point, or thinks the emphasis is wrong, or the joke didn't work, but come on.
Women are never hotter than when they're however many months pregnant you are, heebz.
Next month I'll be even pregnanter!
I thought it was supposed to be square root plus twelve years.
By this formula, my lower bound is the age of consent and my upper bound is several times greater than the maximum human lifespan. I'm for it!
I confess that 3 wasn't so much an actual objection as seizing the opportunity to give you a hard time.
As in the dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal, and frequently superior, every Knack being by Practice capable of improvement.
seizing the opportunity to give you a hard time
Very well then. Carry on.
So if you look at that data it conclusively locates the "dirty old man" transition--between 28 and 29. Now I'm trying to remember if I evinced dirty man tendencies at 29. I assume so.
I'm also mostly giving you a hard time too, but the summary in 29 is missing any reference to liberals, probably because of fear of the PC thought police.
Looking at comments 28 and 29 and trying to puzzle out where the dirty old man transition happens between them.
29's got some nice infinite recursion going on there.
33: jesus, it's only been recursive for a few days, uncle creepy. Give it a little while to learn about the world.
To take a tone entirely too serious for this post, I wonder if men think they think 21 year olds are hotter because they don't really have good ideas of what women look like at various ages? Like, we've equated hot with young, so men assume hot women are young and vice versa. In reality, I feel like there are women who peak at 21, but IME most women get hotter throughout their 20s without necessarily looking older, and this holds at least until their mid 30s. For every woman who gets premature sag wrinkles, there's a woman who gets cheek bones when her baby fat thins out, blah blah. Also, on TV 18 year olds are all played by 27 year old actresses, so there's significant age distortion in what we expect people to look like.*
*There seems to be a fine line between an actress who can play a 15 year old and the one who plays her mother. In TV you end up with a 26 YO playing a teen daughter and a 30 YO playing her mom. It's weird.
That may be true in general, but the specific study ogged is referring to is based on OkCupid data where the actual (or at least reported) ages of the people involved are known to all parties.
Meanwhile, it appears from Professor Veldtanschauung that women who are raped while drunk are as much to blame for their predicament as drunken drivers are for theirs.
Richard Dawkins makes me embarrassed to be an atheist. FFS, what an ass.
38,39: At this point I would have thought that some well meaning friends would have staged an intervention to get him to just stop using twitter.
It appears that this is only the third distinct use of "Veldtanschauung" in internet history, the first being a more literal pun in the title of an essay about Doris Lessing's Rhodesia, and the second being Holbo (who's used it twice). Kind of surprised it hasn't caught on more.
The Class of 2018 has never found Jessica Biel sexually attractive.
I've always been kind of surprised by data like the OP, so much so that I wonder if I've repressed my true feelings and am kidding myself, and could be shown to have the same preferences as suggested in the OP by some demonstration. I wouldn't be devastated if so, it'd just be an irrelevant fact that would help me understand myself, always a good thing.
Still, as it is, Buttercup's speculations mirror my own not only about who's attractive to me now, but who ever was. As a teenager the difference between the girls in a class and the young woman who was the teacher, in terms of sexiness was obvious to me. And who played teenagers on tv was definitely part of it; girls in my classes didn't look like that, or rarely. At the beginning of puberty, 50 years ago, the most developed girls caught my attention first, but I'd probably have laughed about the objects of those desires even a couple of years later.
The thing is, I find this so monumentally less important than that data about how attractions morph and change as you get to know the person over the first three months or so. This is just first-impression-hotness, and our collective obsession with making a hott first impression is super depressing and sucks a whole lot.
44: Right, everyone gets uglier once you get to know the darkness of their soul.
Everyone is hideous, in their own way.
Gswift gets it in 8. This study doesn't show that men looking at pictures of women successfully accurately sort the 20 year olds from the 21 year olds and find the former hotter, it shows that men looking at pictures labelled with age rate women who are not yet legal to drink as hotter than full legal adults.
The Class of 2018 has never found Jessica Biel sexually attractive.
This made me laugh.
Damn it, LB, I was going to say much the same as 47, but now I have to say something else. I'll bet that 86% of guys could distinguish 20-year-olds from 22-year-olds based on photos alone.
What's more impressive is that 86% of men can reliably distinguish which women masturbated a dog from photos alone.
What's impressive is that a woman can masturbate a dog from photos alone.
44: On first-impression hotness, did you see this experiment simulating tinder profiles and testing responses?
I'm not that far into 53, and yet now I must agree with Flippanter at 1.
I was actually impressed by the failure of my own class-dar. There were two contrasted pictures -- a pixie-cut blond and a medium-brown bob, and the explanation was that the medium-brown woman got fewer swipes because of all the things about the picture that marked her as lower class: imperfect teeth, cheap highlights. And boy, that's subtle: there was nothing about the medium-brown woman's picture that would have looked off to me on an NY lawyer. (Admittedly, we're a scruffy bunch, but that's kind of my point.)
The general mechanism I buy, but those two pictures particularly? Super subtle, to the point where I couldn't see it at all.
Looking back at the picture, maybe medium-brown's eyeshadow is a tiny bit questionable.
But a very, very tiny bit. I couldn't see actually predicting anything about her other than imperfect makeup decisions from it.
53: I love the fact that "pleated khaki pants" were specifically mentioned as a kiss of death.
I believe unfogged was on this years ago.
all the things about the picture that marked her as lower class
The shade of eye makeup, the untidy mascara, the too-close face shot, too much bare flesh. Not a NY lawyer.
That is an interesting article.
I didn't read the whole article. I'm assume the secret to Tinder is to hold a fish.
"pleated khaki pants" were specifically mentioned as a kiss of death
Yes, but...if a handsome black guy were rocking them with a cool top, it wouldn't have nearly the same effect as "Dave" on the golf course with his bros.
NMM to the Six Californias initiative.
Anyway, I guess I'm glad someone wrote that, but all the "insights" seem to fall on the very obvious side.
I saw this survey circulating on FB but didn't click through. (I wonder about the sample, since the friend who forwarded it is someone who travels in pretty liberal circles.) I agree with LB that the bad teeth/cheap highlights was subtle. (I don't see anything wrong with her teeth - they're not crooked or stained, just not big white veneers.)
The comparison of the African-American woman to the lighter skinned most popular woman (biracial?) was kind of jarring, too. The less selected woman had bright red hair and wasn't as thin. I don't doubt that both classicism and racism are a huge factor in selection, just quibbling with the images.
There were two contrasted pictures -- a pixie-cut blond and a medium-brown bob, and the explanation was that the medium-brown woman got fewer swipes because of all the things about the picture that marked her as lower class: imperfect teeth, cheap highlights.
The pixie cut wasn't even showing her teeth in the picture! They could be covered with tobacco stains! Come on, Buzzfeed.
Non-pleated pants do look better, but they also sort of smash your balls.
it shows that men looking at pictures labelled with age rate women who are not yet legal to drink as hotter than full legal adults.
Right, which is kind of my point in 36. Men use age as a heuristic, so the data simply shows that men assume younger = hotter, without proving that men closely examine the photo.* If you had the same photo of a woman, and in one instance labeled her 20 and in another 26 (or 32, or whatever), 99% of men would find her 500% hotter in the first instance, because they're not closely scrutinizing the photos. In the study linked to, listed age complicates the findings, since the men are judging age rather than appearance. What the study is finding is that men assume they should find 18-22 YOs hotter, because that is what society tells them. IME, this matches up 0% with real life. For every woman who gets less hot in her 20s, there are 7 women who get hotter. As proof, look at women's senior yearbook photos vs. a photo of them at age 28, and you'll see a clear difference.
*Because please. Men don't notice if you change your hair or get glasses, how closely are they really looking at a woman in a dating photo, except to calculate boob size?
Seriously, I'm in NY courtrooms all the time, and she'd be well within norms. I guess I don't know dating-site picture norms, though: I wasn't thinking to judge things like "too-close face shot".
Well within the norms - yes, certainly. But it signifies very different things if you pick as your "best foot forward Tinder photo" a photo where you look like an ordinary shlub on a workday. There are a lot of ordinary shlub indicators.
The comparison of the African-American woman to the lighter skinned most popular woman (biracial?) was kind of jarring, too. The less selected woman had bright red hair and wasn't as thin.
Yeah, that struck me as a bit overdetermined. The biracial woman was movie-star pretty, and the unambiguously black woman was perfectly nice looking, but not movie-star pretty (and the dyed red hair is a big confounding class marker). If you wanted to say something about just race, you'd want to match the attractiveness levels better.
Yeah, exactly. Maybe a NY lawyer would look like that at work (though I'm skeptical of the eye shadow) but a NY lawyer wouldn't use that as a profile pic.
how closely are they really looking at a woman in a dating photo, except to calculate boob size?
Well, read the link. They're making a dozen calculations about whether the person pictured is a member of their tribe or not.
70: Thank god I got coupled up before I had to worry about the semiotics of dating-site pictures.
There were two contrasted pictures -- a pixie-cut blond and a medium-brown bob, and the explanation was that the medium-brown woman got fewer swipes because of all the things about the picture that marked her as lower class: imperfect teeth, cheap highlights
Hmmm...I have imperfect teeth, but that just makes people assume I'm European instead of low class.
Yeah, my teeth are easily less perfect than hers, and no one seems to notice them as a negative.
Men don't notice if you change your hair or get glasses....
Hey! I occasionally notice things like that!
I have imperfect teeth, but that just makes people assume I'm European instead of low class
I'll stop serially commenting (obsessive, controlling, probably insane--typical middle-eastern) but these signs all depend on each other for their meaning, so there's not a one-to-one relationship between a sign and its meaning. Context!
73: It would have come naturally, is the point. You'd have selected a picture from a vacation in front of a museum, and you wouldn't have thought twice about it. But there would not have been a cross around your neck, you would not have picked a photo where you were wearing a suit, but also not a beat-up track suit, even though such photos might exist.
Teeth-to-boob-size is an unresearched vector.
Maybe people are constantly judging my teeth. How would I know?
Hah. I wonder what percentage of tinder users have no intention of meeting anyone, but are just looking for ego validation.
I'm unable to quote using my phone, but I.ve always noticed glasses or hair changes. Saying something is so often awkward that I usually don't. Can't be that unusual.
Hawaii walked into the sitting room earlier this week and said "Hey, you guys put the rug from your bedroom out here!" and Jammies was absolutely stunned that she was so observant. It completely recreated all the gender roles from my own family, where I notice some small change when I visit, and Dad says "really? it hasn't always been that way?" and Mom says dryly, "Well, it's been that way for two months" or whatever.
There were two contrasted pictures -- a pixie-cut blond and a medium-brown bob, and the explanation was that the medium-brown woman got fewer swipes because of all the things about the picture that marked her as lower class: imperfect teeth, cheap highlights
Ok, I actually looked at the pictures, and I'm not buying it. First off, the blonde's dye job is just as cheap looking, and she's smiling with her mouth closed, so that says nothing about the teeth. The name is a class marker (at least in the US, because Nordic names in general are classy and "exotic"), but other than that the class interpretation seems to be reaching. I can think of several other equally plausible interpretations for the difference in swipe rates that have very little directly to do with class. Not that I disagree with their larger point, I just think this side by side comparison isn't the best.
I actually don't believe the article's analysis of the two pictures mentioned in 55. The left one reads "Portland" to me, while the right one reads "Dallas", but the right one doesn't read as lower class.
So, I have to buy new pants, apparently. I assume Land's End is still the place where the kids are getting their fancy, bag-smasher pants?
I agree with 86, but Dallas has got to have a worse swipe-rate than Portland in the city version of Tinder, among people who would use tinder.
84:
I'm wondering if women's expectation that men will be this unobservant contributes to women's tendency to react to a man's noticing things as "creepy" or "paying too much attention?"
Certainly anyone who judges whether I've observed something by whether I've said something is making a category error.
I have a goofball tired one-liner on this subject, that everyone who knows me has heard before: I don't notice the appearance of women to whom I am not married, that's my story and I'm sticking to it, but . . . and the but will usually be something specific -- that's a hairstyle that really works for your face, that color looks good on you. Glasses have never brought this out, and, really, I'm very hesitant to even say this much unless it's really someone I know well, and it looks like this isn't going to creep them out.
Do I say hey, nice rack? No, but I can't say I don't find myself silently appreciating some woman's northern temperate zone from time to time.
I fully expect most of the women I meet to think to themselves Jesus, is that man actually pregnant? and, thankfully, to refrain from asking me.
If you're going to stick a small, plastic foot out of your zipper, that's about the best you can hope for.
I like 90, and I think there is a way to notice many things without being creepy. Any compliments about my looks, I prefer Oh, your X looks nice. I say thanks, and we move on. You don't want to compliment a new hairstyle that someone hates too effusively, you know? I think that further details frequently veer into uncomfortable territory. (My favorite, mentioned before, is when folks like the splint I wear on my left hand, and I'm really awkward about it since I have to wear it, and I don't normally wear rings. I can say thanks, but telling people whether it's comfortable, where I got it, and so on is too much conversation.)
Also, why the hell are we analyzing the women pairs but only the golf guy? Truck guy reminds me of something I'd have seen where I grew up as a very clear signal to the right kind of recipient. Same with camo fishing dude, except it'd be more likely a gun.
Heh. My very first little kid boyfriend turned into truck guy (parents moved from suburb to exurb when we was in HS). Married his girlfriend right after he graduated from HS and joined the army. Was doing heavy machine mechanic work in Korea. Got a girl there pregnant, wife divorced him. Mom gave me a bit of grief when he got married . Her exact words were, "Just think, that could have been you." I told her the rest a couple years later ending with, "Just think, that could've been me!"
"Just think, that could have been you."
That line for an army mechanic? Your mom is easily impressed.
Serially commenting in one comment!
66: The pixie cut wasn't even showing her teeth in the picture!
The lesson is clearly that if your teeth don't look like ultra-white veneers, don't smile.
Both blond pixie-cut woman and the highest-rated male, Xavier, are closed mouthed. Of course they both reek of upper-middle class, and also look like known actors -- Xavier looks like Will Smith, vaguely -- which leads to:
71: The biracial woman was movie-star pretty
All the best-rated people had photos that looked like they came out of a magazine. They're essentially professional headshots. If you've ever viewed the headshot portfolio of an actor, you can see it.
91 made me laugh.
I continue to disappoint in fulfilling my life's purpose of getting married. Beggars can't be choosers, y'know. I don't think it's about grandchildren, but who knows?)
I'm reading 93 as confirmation that noticing and complementing is a minefield, where it's very, very easy to "veer into uncomfortable territory." So that the no doubt numerous men in every environment who do notice find it easier to slink into the gender-expectation of obtuseness as protective coloring. The kind of complement that is acceptable has always seemed to me so anodyne and hackneyed as not to be worth saying.
All of which leads me to think that Tinder is a horrible place in which people ask themselves, "Would I want to date this actor?"
It's pretty obvious what's going on with "Marit" vs the other woman, and it has nothing to do with class. Unfortunately it has to do with weight -- "Crystal" at least in the photo I saw is posed in a classic "overweight person trying to appear skinny" pose (she may not be, it's just hard to tell from the photo), "Marit" is not. Presumably users of Tindr are hypersensitive to this concern. The article's analysis seems much more persuasive for the male photos, but the Marit/Crystal difference is all about weight. I guess pointing this out does make me an asshole but it's sadly true.
93: why the hell are we analyzing the women pairs but only the golf guy?
Good question. Let's see: the main difference between the women's photos and the men's is that most of the male photos (besides Xavier) are taken in a setting. Most of the female photos are portraits; there may be a generic background, but the focus is her, not her in the setting. There are a couple exceptions.
That's not really surprising: men are about what they're about. Women are about what they look like.
101: I agree you have a point, but it's not the whole point. Weight is a class marker (wealthier people are less likely to be obese) and the hair style and clothing are also class markers.
I'd have looked most like "truck guy" when I was driving a truck as a summer job, and probably for a while after. More likely a long-sleeved shirt, and nobody but catchers wore their caps backwards then, but close. So I was read as "conservative," and many other pejoratives by the women I wanted to appeal to, who then as now wanted "Conor," but also by the women who wanted "conservative" et al, and were going to be mighty nonplussed when they talked to me.
101: I see the point, but there's surely something to the fact that the Marit photo depicts presentability (to friends and family, say), while the Crystal photo is intimate, sexified. Crystal looks like she's looking into your eyes while you're having dinner or a close conversation, perhaps about to have sex. This is, I'd venture, perceived as inappropriate. Marit's photo on the other hand shows compartmentalization.
The more I look at the two photos, the more appealing I find Crystal, to be honest. But it's truly ridiculous to be basing one's judgment on a single photo.
Also note that Marit is allegedly 28, while Crystal is 22: Crystal still has what buttercup upthread called the baby fat, perhaps.
Do I say hey, nice rack? No, but I can't say I don't find myself silently appreciating some woman's northern temperate zone from time to time.
Feminism, what hath thou wrought?
It's not that Crystal's teeth are imperfect or whatever; it's just that... she does look lower class than Marit! She does. For all these reasons, together. (In other words, 77 is 100% correct.) Whether that's the main reason why people are swiping on by is a separate question.
The name Crystal is itself a pretty strong class marker, right?
I can't say I don't find myself silently appreciating some woman's northern temperate zone from time to time
O my America! my new-found-land...
Let's all reveal our class standing.
Career advice from a former student who graduated in May:
Just get good at *something* first, even the *thing* is not terribly important. Then worry about what to do with that; build career capitol before you try to spend it.
Yes, wise 23 year old. No one ever regrets spending years of their life mastering a poorly chosen skill that they hate.
WE're 100 comments and nobody has pointed out the fundamental blind spot of the article? Of course their middle-class survey respondents are going to be upwardly mobile/aspirational, that's pretty much the definition of middle class!
The question is what kind of signals do poor and working-class people look for and respond to, and they have no data on that.*
*Although I have always been boggled by the in-flight magazine articles for dating services. To me, the women founders of the services inevitably read as lower-middle-class. I can't figure out who their market is -- you'd think a business traveler with discretionary income would want someone who was a fellow professional.
110:
I've always liked Orwell's "lower upper middle" class formulation from Such, Such Were The Joys: high culture and education standards combined with marginal income. Shabby gentility.
My wife thinks Fussell's "Class X" applies to me, I'm not so sure I'm secure enough.
And I certainly needed to test myself against lower or working class standards. Military service, car repair and working in a garage, truck driving, factory work, construction were rites of passage to my own sense of manhood; I needed to do them. The true lower-upper-middle would not have a problem with college-to-graduate/professional-school-to-UMC, wouldn't be as ambivalent as I've been.
The question is what kind of signals do poor and working-class people look for and respond to, and they have no data on that.
Yes, as actual social sciences research, the survey is useless in pretty much all dimensions. Fun as an exercise in watching members of A Certain Class go clambering around in their class anxiety/awareness/whatever landscape, though.
My wife thinks Fussell's "Class X" applies to me
I'm pretty sure "Class X" only so much applies to anyone -- not that the general category of class identity doesn't exist at all, but as it's defined and presented in the book it's a pretty impressive exercise in wishful thinking.
I'm not surprised that the WASP looking picture was met with frothing hatred rather than a mere "not my tribe". I've noticed in myself that the amount of distaste and avoidance I feel for people who remind me of the frat boys in Real Genius would shock me if I were judging them for some other race and class marker.
117: I'm not surprised that the WASP looking picture was met with frothing hatred rather than a mere "not my tribe".
It's the plaited pants.
people who remind me of the frat boys in Real Genius
AND STOP TOUCHING YOURSELF!
the frat boys in Real Genius
Were there frat boys in Real Genius? There was the bad guy professor and Kent the toady student but I don't think either of them resembled frat boys.
113.--Although I have always been boggled by the in-flight magazine articles for dating services. To me, the women founders of the services inevitably read as lower-middle-class. I can't figure out who their market is -- you'd think a business traveler with discretionary income would want someone who was a fellow professional.
Upper and upper-middle class people are very used to having assistants, secretaries, junior executives, and various problem-solving people that "do" for them to have come from the lower-middle-class striving class. As long as the dating service is conveyed as a service (rather than as a favor, as the higher-class matchmakers seem to manage to connote, despite their fees), the consumer wants to feel like he can be demanding and dominant.
Are we talking about the ads for the thing called something like "It's Just Lunch"? Those women scare me.
I've noticed that those ads have recently shifted from touting the benefits of the service itself to pointing out the downsides of online dating and arguing that their service can do better. Clearly the rise of dating websites has been a major challenge to their business model.
pointing out the downsides of online dating and arguing that their service can do better
Radio adds on rock stations here do that.
the consumer wants to feel like he can be demanding and dominant
Was the appeal of this cross-class encounter, the excitement of it ever mentioned in the story of the big-state governor with the stockings?
If you mean Spitzer, that was a booty that did not require explaining.
122: Ah, that makes a lot of sense. I hadn't thought about it that way.
Were there frat boys in Real Genius? There was the bad guy professor and Kent the toady student but I don't think either of them resembled frat boys.
Since it was based on Caltech: no not really. But also... kinda. The house system there is essentially coed fraternities. Or Hogwarts.
I've told the story before of coming out of my office or lab late one night and seeing several kids proceeding into the steam tunnels via the mechanical room... with another led behind them, chained and blindfolded, right?
I don't think 122 is right. The consumers of those dating services may have money, but they aren't particularly class-oriented and are probably culturally LMC. Or, just generally lonely people who also don't particularly care for class status markers. If you're getting your dating service from an in flight magazine you may have enough cash to buy one of the more expensive garden sculptures from the SkyMall catalogue, but it's probably not important to you that your future spouse reads the New Yorker or would never enter an Olive Garden.
126: You find Eliot Spitzer that attractive, Moby?
No judgments; I'm just ... surprised.
It seems like the consumers of such services may be interested in finding people who are comfortable among professionals, but will be fine mostly staying home.
129.--I grant you that the consumers of the in-flight magazine are god-knows-who. I was responding more to the idea of UC/UMC people going for dating services run by people who were identifiably middle-class-on-the-make. My experience is that there are a lot of UC/UMC people (at least in New York?) who are more comfortable being demanding about service-y stuff from lower-middle class people than from anyone who displays class markers that indicate "I might meet you socially sometime."
The high-class matchmakers who manage to run Madoff-level exclusivity scams have my respect, to be honest.
I agree! Actually, has anyone known anyone who's done It's Just Lunch! I don't think I have, nor anyone who's joined their more sex-positive advanced service It's Just Anal!
There's also a strategic consulting service called It's Just War!
Then there's the judicial matchmaking service It's Just!
I dated a guy who I'm still occasional friends with, who tried It's Just Lunch! Unsuccessful. But this guy has been unsuccessful in love for the entire nine years I've known him, and has dated super aggressively the whole time. (His formula for failure: have epically high standards for "the spark" and "the butterflies" and how she must dress and strike you as a crazy hot emotionally unstable Betty Paige Bad Girl, who is actually emotionally stable, and who is also super well informed on current events, super liberal, doesn't want kids, and on and on. So if you're unlucky in love, try not to be as stupidly picky as he is.)
137: bonsaisue has a dear friend like this. Her case has the added difficulty of including severe sectarian religiousity. Try finding the right dateable lutheran from the right synod! Please!
It's Just a Highly-Structured and Particularized Set of Criteria by which I'll Determine if It Will Ever Be More than Just Lunch!
Maybe they just want to be single but don't want to admit it.
That would use up what remains of my patience for his mopey I'm so lonely routine.
Which would explain why he doesn't want to admit it.
138
From what synod did he have to be?
138: which is toughest to find ;)
Missouri Synod of Latter Day Saints.
I Can't Believe It's Not Anglicanism.
It's Just My Super Secret Synod.
137: so wait, along what dimensions did you fail to meet his criteria?
"Nit wanting kids" seems, on reflection, an obvious candidate.
I worry that our nits are wanting adult things when they are too young.
Also insufficiently devilishly rockabilly bad. And not enough butterflies.
Betty Paige was rockabilly? Or is that another thing?
It's more that rockabilly wants to be Bettie Page, I'd think.
I wonder how much heebie's experience with this guy specifically contributed to her general attitude toward "spark" etc. as discussed in her recent post.
So who is going to the services advertised in the back of the LRB? Genuinely puzzled. Granted can't compare to those in in-flight magazines as scrupulously avoid them.
It's Just Lunch! is probably the wrong venue for your friend, heebie. The devilish rockabilly bad girls of my acquaintance tend to stay up late then sleep through lunch.
155: probably not much. I wasn't that into him either. The most remarkable thing about him is his dogged insistence that we should maintain a friendship. I basically said "ok, but on my terms: I'm happy to get lunch with you once or twice a year." So we do.
My dad has stated that he wants to be cremated and then have the remains become part of a cannonball that's fired off into the ocean. My mom opposes this plan, being against cremation for Catholic reasons. (I gather the Church has softened it stance on cremation, but she's still against it, for him anyway.)
Nit with wit seeks Bettie Page for rockabilly, butterflies. No lunch.
160: To be allowed, you have to fire the cannonball with the cremated remains onto consecrated ground.
Not nit nggh not not nit not.
Nit nit folly bololey.
I realize it's the middle of the night for many of us, but 161 is getting insufficient love.
I was just thinking the same thing. Well done, fa.
And yet I'm here, with plenty of free time, on a Saturday night, to make jokes about dating ads.
It's one of those painful tradeoffs. There's nothing better than being awake by myself in a quiet house, but there's nothing worse than being exhausted all day with needy children. Lee is supposed to be active in the parenting tomorrow, which will help, but my friend who's a single mom to four boys four and under will be around, so that's more work for all of us to spread around. Hmm.
I mean, the other piece is that there's absolutely nothing better than good sleep! But between snores and a congested baby who keeps waking herself and screaming when she can't breathe, I won't be getting a ton of the enjoyable kind.