I can't stop admiring "...although
health professionals consider these results satisfactory."
There are just so many interpretations and possible uses for it.
I like to help out coworkers looking for interesting papers to present at a work journal club. Thank you, Nworb, for one of the most perfect examples for this since the paper on perception of penis size vs weight and height in (heh) PNAS.
meatus
Really?!
(Also, if this is a good paper for ydnew 's journal club at work, I think the pink dildo was up the right alley.)
Even considering the thread's topic, that's some low-hanging fruit.
Hypospadias look like little blind angry cartoon men.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
5.3: The gift was a big hit, actually, with heartfelt thanks for the non-dildo gifts. She got almost every gift suggested in that thread, including a teddy/slip and a bra in the specified size! Also, massage oil, lube, "adult" dice, and so on.
It turns out that guesses at naughty charades were revealing. Licking motion + fingers in a "V" apparently does not signify cunnilingus to everybody! (Apologies to those who weren't locked out before now.)
5.last: That's why you're supposed to use one with a flared base.
(Ignore 6 please.)
11: The actress was going for either "first kiss' or "French kiss." My memory is a bit hazy and dominated by how embarrassed I was when I got WTF looks from other attendees after my first guess. Thank god after my first guess was wrong I didn't up the ante to "rimming" or something.
Huh. I guess that speaks to the awkwardness of doing one of these with coworkers.
9: I think that's the ASL for cunnilingus. At least that's what my ASL speaking GF told me way back when. She used to hang with a community of deaf lesbians, which Tucson apparently has a lot of, so you'd think she'd know.
Though come to think of it there really isn't a licking motion so much as a little stick out of the tongue.
aw, my hearts got eaten because they had html brackets. there were hearts.
Wow, I think of myself as not particularly prudish, Yet the thought of signing off on an academic study in which my 16-year-old daughter will rate penile attractiveness is difficult to imagine as plausible.
It probably sounds even better in French in a Peter Lorre accent.
"You despise my penis, don't you?"
20: I want to see what they wrote to the IRB to get permission to do that.
I think the study was performed in Switzerland, so my guess would be the parents' reaction was more along the lines of "Well you can but only if you promise that you will judge them on their own not just pick the ones that look like Albrecht's penis. I know he's really cute but they only want to know about the penises themselves, in isolation."
Back from the date. It went pretty well, I think, but was short because she had made plans with a friend for later in the evening. Which seems a little weird, but she was apologetic about it and she definitely did want to see me again.
Report on location of eyebrows relative to hat
Is Giselle Swiss? I thought it all happened in Silesia.
26: Maybe she was afraid she wouldn't be able to control herself if left with you with no set end time. Because she's a compulsive murderer.
30: Heh.
Seriously, though, this is weird, right? Accepting a date with someone but scheduling something else immediately afterward? At a minimum it seems to strongly imply that the date isn't your highest priority, which seems contrary to the usual norms of dating.
Now that I think about it, my last date before this one (with someone who messaged me on OkCupid) was very similar in this respect, as well as being very awkward in other ways. In conclusion, dating sucks.
32 is true but congrats all the same, teo.
9 (Apologies to those who weren't locked out before now.) What?
I think the reference to a lockout is to LB's net nanny. If the nanny didn't already lock out based on the topic, it will because of the words used in 9.
I think teo's date scheduled something later so she would have an out no matter what. Or it could be just a conflict of chances, this other emergent had a limited window. Overall I don't think it is anything negative. In glad you had a good time and she wants to go out again.
I think teo's date scheduled something later so she would have an out no matter what.
Maybe, but if so why did she take that out rather than continuing the date when she seemed to be enjoying it? It just seems weird.
Or it could be just a conflict of chances, this other emergent had a limited window.
Not sure what this means exactly, but the other thing doesn't seem to have been particularly time sensitive or anything.
Overall I don't think it is anything negative. In glad you had a good time and she wants to go out again.
That's reassuring, but it's worth noting that the specific things she suggested doing in the future were group activities rather than one-on-one dates. Again, not really sure how to interpret any of this.
I mean, even if things don't develop romantically with this particular girl, there's an opportunity here for entry into a social group that seems pretty congenial to me, so overall I do think this was a success. Her behavior just seems really confusing to me.
She wants to go out with you again and that's a good thing. Don't overthink it.
Huh. Group activities. Hrmmm. Yeah I'd have doubts too. On the pre scheduled out, I figure it was real. She just decided to allot a certain amount of time to a date and enforced it on herself.
40 gets it right.
I agree with md 20/400 about the prescheduling. If she anticipates some likelihood of awkwardness, having an already-scheduled event makes it a lot easier to bail. Yes, that means she has to cut things short even if they go well, but if things go well there will be 2nd & 3rd dates, etc., so no big loss.
As for group activities, don't overthink it. Maybe she wants to be sure you're the sort of guy her friends get along with. Maybe it's that she's got a lot of group activities coming up, and now wants to involve you in those. Make plans to do one of the things she suggested, and if it goes well, suggest something one-on-one for the third date.
If I went out with a woman and I cut the date short so I could go and hang out with my friends instead, and then didn't ask her on another date but suggested we should just spend more time hanging out with my friends instead, I suspect that she would consider me at best somewhat clueless.
I think it would be better for the world as a whole if the first meeting with someone from OKCupid or other online sites was mutually understood to be a short coffee-type date, meant to determine whether the in-person interaction goes well. From there, a first actual date could be planned.
My now-husband and I had wildly differing ideas of what our first meeting would be like - I was expecting (and thus suggesting) low-stakes meeting at a generic coffee place, he was suggesting lovely romantic places (too much too soon for me, though). He found my turning down his suggestions depressing, because he was suggesting genuinely nice places and I was responding with Starbucks-type answers; I found him wanting to do too much of a "dating" vibe too fast. Clearly we figured it out, but online dating is complicated.
My standard tactic for dating is to arrange something that lasts maybe an hour or two, and make it explicit that this is a pre-date. Coffee is ideal.
I can drink a coffee in like five minutes.
Maybe other cities have longer lines in the Starbuckses.
Make plans to do one of the things she suggested, and if it goes well, suggest something one-on-one for the third dateremainder of the evening following the group activity.
I can drink a coffee in like five minutes.
The question is not how quickly you can drink it; the question is how slowly you can drink it. Women use this as a proxy to judge your lovemaking.
I like my coffee like I like my women, gone cold long before I'm finished.
49: but then he only needs a couple more minutes and he's ready for a second cup.
Wasn't crazyblinddate designed so that the first date was short and in a Starbucks-type place? That seemed like such a good idea, but okcupid seems to have bought and killed it.
OKCupid is slowly becoming shittier and shittier as the MBAs from Match.com (which bought it) try to monetize everything. They are trying to make it more like Tinder and in the process completely buggering it up. And not in the good buttsex way.
Scheduling something immediately after a first date seems totally normal to me. If she wanted to keep things light, it's a good way to do so, even if she was enjoying herself. I'd hate to be stuck mid-dinner if conversation stalled or if you revealed yourself to be somehow awful (not that you are!).
Liking you enough in whatever way to want to see you again is a win.
35: Exactly what I meant, thanks.
45: From the guy who had a, what, 36 hour date? I'm impressed with your versatility, sir.
54.last: That actually turned out to be a modest disaster in the longer term. Lesson learned. Skipping the pre-date is a bad idea.
in the longer term
So it went downhill after the first 31 hours?
Coffee is ideal.
Because nothing makes a good first impression like the jitters, bad breath, and diarrhea.
I've been thinking and reading a lot about relationships and dating and all that lately and I think there's a connection to unpaid emotional labor as recently discussed on The Toast and responded to on MetaFilter. Figuring out boundaries and how much work/hope you're willing to put in ahead of time seems normal but also like a situation that's likely to lead to the two parties having differing expectations, especially in the online dating world.
This isn't particularly a response to teo's situation, but something like making plans with friends so that it will be an enjoyable night whether the date is good or not seems like a potentially healthy thing to do. The downside is that it already sets up the scenario where you're either ditching your date for your friends, which understandably annoyed teo, or you're bailing on your friends because you've got a date, which is a stereotypical thing people in new relationships do that annoys their friends, right? Balancing all the tradeoffs seems tough to me.
52, 53: OKCupid actually built crazyblinddate in the first place, but yeah, Match.com's parent company bought them and the founders left to make keybase and now presumably everything is terrible.
59.2: It does sound bad that way. I think there's a difference between leaving a date after 15 or 30 min and 2 h. Like, a date for happy hour drinks should not be understood to include dinner after and then maybe a nightcap, and I think maybe if one has the tendency to go along with invitations in the moment (or trouble saying no), it seems totally OK to make later plans as a backstop. Best would be mentioning the later plan when scheduling or early on.
WebEx might be good for first dates.
58: It doesn't have that effect on me, but it's not uncommon.
I like my coffee like I like my women's furniture, with solid stools.
OKCupid actually built crazyblinddate in the first place
I thought it was built by one of the same guys, but was a separate entity, but I'm probably wrong. Anyway, it's dead and that's too bad (notionally, at least; never used it myself).
It would be weird to be around people for whom "how can we monetize this?" isn't a joke but a serious question.
It's an even weirder question to in all seriousness ask yourself.
Especially while standing at the urinal.
54.1 gets it right on the scheduled shortness. Not a big deal.
The group activities thing is different though. That seems like a pretty clear signal that she wants to be friends but not date. I guess maybe it could just be that she has had bad experiences or feels she exhibits poor judgement and so wants some friends around for safety or advice.
(That said, I did have a first date offer get countered offered with a group activity where we ended up hooking up after the second date. But that was a weird situation because she was in an open relationship.)
I can't tell if 69 is an additional element of the situation you're trying to monetize, or is the answer of how to monetize the situation set up in 66-68. It's not a bad answer.
As a document reviewer, a litigation discovery specialist, I spend every working day reading the emails of would-be monetize-rs. Hundreds of emails a day.
Now that you mention it, it is odd to consider these attitudes normal, as I've come to do.
59: That Metafilter thread is amazing. I keep going back to it to catch up (now over 1000 comments) and every time I get so grumpy about my life. I assume this is what first wave (?) feminists felt like reading The Feminist Mystique.
59,73: The MetaFilter thread is worth a guest post on it's own. I didn't really like the original article much, but there's gold in that MetaFilter thread.
73, 74: Yeah, for obvious reasons I find it both incredibly depressing and sort of liberating. But really, really interesting!
I'm not exactly sure what emotional labor is, but this reminded me to send a thank you email to somebody.
I'm old enough to remember complaints that I didn't share my feelings and never talked about work. New world!
The best part about talking about your feelings is that you can pretty much say whatever you want. It's not like anybody else is going to be able to call you a liar on it.
That sort of thing can go horribly wrong.
Posting the mefi thread as it's own post.
79, 80: Blocked at work for me.
Is it the story where the women keeps finishing her husband's stories for him until he begins concocting elaborate fantasies (or maybe just the one), and then ends with him in the mental ward and her correcting his fantasies? (Something like that.)
At first I thought it might be where the Winships break up because the man insists that Donald Duck is better than Greta Garbo, but that really doesn't fit.
I'm going to choose to believe comment 69 was liveblogging.
Thanks, everyone. This is all very reassuring.
Addressing some specific points now that I'm home and no longer typing on a phone:
Maybe it's that she's got a lot of group activities coming up, and now wants to involve you in those.
Yeah, this is the case. I think my description of the group activities thing was a little misleading; it didn't actually come up in the context of a subsequent date at all. She does a lot of hiking and kept asking me if I had done various hikes around town, which of course I hadn't because I basically never do anything. Eventually she asked if I needed a hiking buddy and offered to invite me on the group hikes she does regularly. It was really quite nice of her and neither here nor there as far as future dates go. She's also having a party in a couple weeks that I was already planning on going to, which isn't exactly a second date but will be a good opportunity to talk to her more in a relaxed social setting.
I think there's a difference between leaving a date after 15 or 30 min and 2 h. Like, a date for happy hour drinks should not be understood to include dinner after and then maybe a nightcap, and I think maybe if one has the tendency to go along with invitations in the moment (or trouble saying no), it seems totally OK to make later plans as a backstop. Best would be mentioning the later plan when scheduling or early on.
Yeah, I think this was pretty easy to interpret as a potentially short date that wouldn't be expected to extend late into the evening, and the problem really was that she didn't say up front (either beforehand or at the beginning of the date) that she could only stay for a couple hours because she had plans afterward. The thing that really bothered me was having this suddenly come up in the middle of the great conversation we were having. It didn't immediately cut the date short; it was more "sorry, but I have to leave in about a half hour."
I don't think you can rule out the potential murderer angle. How many people return from these hikes? Is there a reason they might be looking for new people?
I don't know any of the details, man. Maybe I should buy a gun just in case.
I thought they issued you one when you established residency.
Nah, we're not quite that socialist up here (yet). The Permanent Fund Dividend is sufficient to cover the purchase of several firearms, though.
77 noted. I think that in my experience, and in the relationships of my friends, there is definitely an imbalance between partners on time spent describing emotional situations and appealling for support, and time spent performing the emotional labour of providing said support, and it doesn't go the way this thread seems to think it goes.
86 last. Positive spin: she hadn't anticipated the date lasting as long as it did, maybe the time it took to drink one cup of coffee; but your scintillating conversation enthralled her to the extent that she suddenly realised time had gone by and, oh shit there's this other thing I said I'd go to.
91 would also be sort of my experience, too. I wouldn't want to claim universality for it, but it fits with the people I know, and with my own experience.
On a similar vein, a friend's girlfriend is a barmaid in our 'local' and she came over to mock a group of us (all men) for our conversation. Mockery basically, because we'd spent 2 hours discussing our wives and children.*
Whereas, as she cackled, when groups of her 'mum' friends are in, they are all talking about shagging, boozing, and men.
*All of us do about 50% of the child-care for our kids, and one guy is a full-time stay-at-home Dad.
94: cf. the golden moment in "Trainspotting" - it cuts between the girls (in the club toilet) complaining about their boyfriends, and the boys (back at the table) complaining about their girlfriends, and then the girls come back to the table:
Girls (in unison): What you been talkin' about?
Boys look at each other in panic.
Boys (in unison): Fitba! What you been talkin' about?
Girls (in unison, scornfully): Shoppin'.
94: The only possible response to that is to drop your pants (or lift your kilt) right there.
OT: if I notice that the jeans I'm wearing at work today that I pulled out of my dirty clothes hamper this morning reek of stale BO, can I feel safe in the knowledge that I'm in closer physical proximity to my jeans than any of my co-workers are likely to be (and therefore no one else is likely to notice) or should I be worried that I'm probably at least half-desensitized to the smell (and so if I can smell them, it's going to be really noticeable to anyone else)?
Just don't get on an elevator with other people and you'll probably be fine.
But mostly I think you're fine. Nobody's nose will be below your waist. Probably.
If you're important enough that people have to literally kiss your ass, then they'll notice. But then you don't need to worry about what they think.
101: Children aren't allowed into offices.
I'm in closer physical proximity to my jeans than any of my co-workers are likely to be
While it's easy to imagine situations in which my co-workers might be in reasonably close proximity to my trousers (in the lift, for example), it's trickier to imagine situations in which they are in closer proximity to my trousers than I am myself. I spend my entire working day inside my trousers. Even if they climbed in here with me they still wouldn't be any closer than I am.
"I'm not trapped in these trousers with you. You're trapped in them with me."
"I've been in these trousers for eight years now, Clarice, and I know that they will never ever let me out while I'm alive."
I spend my entire working day inside my trousers
What makes you assume that's also true for urple?
Urple certainly does not spend his entire working day inside my trousers.
I think it's obvious that what I meant was that my nose is in closer physical proximity to my jeans than the noses of any of my co-workers are likely to be.
108: He would hardly fit, what with the horse.
108: So, just evenings, weekends, and holidays?
I don't have to say it, do I?