Good god.
(a) I don't have a list like this. I prefer to proceed in particularist fashion.
(b) as Sir Mix-a-lot said,
Some brothers wanna play that hard roleand tell you that the butt need to go
So they toss it and leave it
And I pull up quick to retrieve it
(c) I'll let you know when I start the "win a date with Fontana Labs" contest.
(a) Do the results of your particularist proceedings manifest, in general and for the most part, a list which you do not explicitly formulate?
(b) Did you know that the results of googling "ugly iranian" and "ugly persian" are not terribly helpful for coming up with images to claim are pictures of ogged? Unless he's somewhere in here (NSFW).
(c) WTF, ogged? Many Russian, Asian (broadly construed) and eastern European woman are very attractive! And by "whose primary language is not English" do you mean "who are not fluent in English"? Those are the only ones that make no sense to me.
Oh yes, they're attractive, alright.
Fluency is never quite the same as having as one's primary language, so no, I don't just mean fluent.
Good call on Fontana's (a). And particularism is more hurtful anyway: no, it's you.
So if you were a native speaker of German, and a properly tall, non-smoking, flat-assed woman of appropriate ethnic descent presented you had just won her Grosses Deutsches Sprachdiplom (near mother-tongue!), you would still be all like, "es tut mir leid, babe, but we'll inevitably have a communication problem somewhere down the road"?
What if you had been going out with a woman for, say, a few months, and then you find out that despite her seeming perfect understanding of English, her native language is Finnish? Would you just have to break it off? (Relatedly: I think I understand the real reason why you won't date women who wear heels--don't want to be tricked into dating a woman under 5'6"! Clever!)
(Unless I'm misinterpreting "primary" by understanding it to be "native", which I guess is possible--but then it doesn't seem stringent enough, since I'm sure there are people whose primary language is English but who are nevertheless not fluent. But based on "just fluent" I would suppose that "primary" and "native" aren't too dissimilar, whatever you might mean by "primary".)
I just don't see how that could be something that's bad in all cases, or indicative of something bad in all cases, such that it's grounds for disqualification from that great lottery whose prize is Ogged. What's the problem? It seems too involved for it just to be something you find not to your taste.
To the unstudied eye, ogged's list might appear like a farrago of odd prejudices. But I think we can discern at least one underlying theme, that of avoiding tendencies towards shallowness/materialism. Make-up and high heels fit this. And bad people who are not me might claim that certain, er, cultural groups tend this way too.
I myself have been coupled up so long that I don't go around formulating these lists. But speaking from long remembered introspection I think that ogged is spot on in identifying class as the major issue. And by class, I don't mean "what your dad does" I mean "this is the way we do things." Most people find it immensely stressful to deal with people whose basic conventions and assumptions are different. I know lots of successful marriages across family background, religion, wealth, and material aspiration. But I know almost none that cross more fundamental behavioral norms. And those norms are just what class is.
What is the purpose of the dating here? It's just dating, not marriage, right? Anyway, it seems like a bizarre list without a minimum qualifier of "unless she's really hot."
I think my particularist decisions manifest that I stole my list from Groucho.
I wonder what you consider a big butt.
In a way, it's funny your list is so short. My mental list of type's of girls I wouldn't even consider dating is rather longer. I'm curious about your language requirement. I'm guessing you're a non-native speaker, correct? Is this something to do with assimilating into US culture?
About the lipstick stuff, I think that in a conservative society lipstick would be wrong because it is a sign the lipstick-wearer is willing to question and reject norms. This is threatening to a conformist group, and is reason enough to not associate with such a person, and with those who condone the action. Nothing needs to be wrong with the action itself.
Damn, baa, I wasn't trying to insult half the world for crying out loud. In fact, the shallow materialism thing doesn't account for the inclusion of any of those ethnic groups.
And Ben W, grudging props to that school of yours for teaching you to read properly: the locution is awkward because my first language is Farsi, but my primary language is English. And if I don't notice the language thing, no, I'm not checking anyone's papers.
I know you hate those materialistic right-handers!
Michael, you're an unreasonable bastard and no one wants to date you anyway.
I didn't expect the language requirement to be the hang-up. Two things: two of my very close friends are dating (or about to marry) non-native speakers. They're wonderful women, and great relationships, but my friends do have to stop occasionally and explain things--an idiom, a joke, whatever. I don't want to do that. No patience for it. That makes my friends better, more generous souls than me, but, hey, a man's got to know his limitations--no sense pretending.
Second, in conversation, I tend toward the terse and elliptical, and it's hard enough finding native speakers who are comfortable with that.
So, nothing to do with assimilation. In fact, you've made me think of another item: Those who are eager to assimiliate.
Ah well then I'd be off your list anyway - I'm only 5'2" - maybe it's a short girl thing to want to wear high heels at work. There's nothing worse than having to look up at someone like you're a little kid when you're giving them a drubbing.
>>my friends do have to stop occasionally and explain things--an idiom, a joke, whatever
So what you really want is someone from your own social and geographical background. As an Aussie (who only speaks English), I still had to explain a lot of Aussie idioms and humour to those in the UK (who mostly only spoke English) when I lived there. And there are a lot of jokes you just don't get unless you're an overeducated (or at least well read) child of pop culture.
Hmmm... interesting.
-OLS
We know that you object to wearing heels not because of the heels themselves, but because of what you think they indicate about the wearer: how many other items on the list are symptoms, instead of conditions?
You know, I was really hoping this would become a thread about conservatism and articulating reasons.
Sigh. Just when I thought you'd be a perfect match for my friend.
It is, sort of. It's about articulating your conservative reasons.
I think that your articulation of reasons would be improved if, in addition to listing the outward signs that would cause you not to date a woman, you included what you thought those signs indicated, in the cases where that's relevant.
Class is indeed the big selector, and we are seldom even aware of its workings. I have a list (now retired, what with being married and all), but it looks really different from yours, Ogged. Possession of any of the following traits disqualifies you from the nigh-unbearable bliss of apostrophic coupling.
1. Devout [insert any religion except Church of the Subgenius here].
2. No college.
3. Republicans.
4. Thin, pretty blondes (sure, I'm plenty attracted but personal experience tells me they are almost always insane).
5. Vegetarians.
6. Exercise junkies.
7. Capricorns.
8. Amputees.
9. Women with kids.
10. Breast implants.
I feel weird putting #9 on the list, given that I spent a few years as a dating single parent, but it's just too complicated.
The apostropher comes through! Comments and questions:
1. I'm ok with devout, as long as it's not stifling devout, which I think is more temperamental than ideological. But I'm not a Southerner, so you can probably educate me on this.
2. The class thing again: hadn't considered it explicitly, but I just expect the situation wouldn't arise.
3. Seems obvious, but maybe a reasonable Republican who wasn't going to vote for GW this year?
4. Never dated one. Makes sense though.
5. Yup, should have put it on my list.
6. Uh, might be one--wouldn't mind another.
7. For real?
8. Natch.
9. Yup, me too.
10. If I won't go for makeup...
Ok Ben, I'll play a little. Squeaking, in addition to being annoying itself, conjures sorority girl greetings, which conjures sorority girls, which I don't want conjured. Smoking, in addition to being gross and smelly itself, I associate with wanting to be dead.
Ogged, the aversion to squeaking is entirely well founded.
That's a sad and poignant confession, Labs.
But I'm not a Southerner
Nothing to do with regionalism. I just make fun of it entirely too often to have that in a dating relationship.
maybe a reasonable Republican who wasn't going to vote for GW this year
For friends, sure. One night stand, definitely. For dating, nope. Too many instances of having to qualify remarks with "present company excluded, of course." I have too much to say to have to constantly drop ten gratuitous syllables.
Never dated one.
It's pretty cool at the beginning - jealous looks from other guys at bars and the like - but man, when they snap it's like nothing you've ever seen. Protect your eyes and testicles and run away in a zig-zag pattern.
7. For real?
Sorta. It's not the actual sign so much as exhibiting the stereotypical behaviors thereof. Virgos, too, though they comprise a hefty plurality of my close friends.
I should probably add: they don't necessarily have to drink and drug, but they would have to be exceptionally tolerant of it in others. Well, just in me, really.
I can understand that you feel women from certain regions or cultures are likely to not interact well with you, as I've had the same experience but totally cutting them off the list seems somewhat rude, to phrase it nicely.
my list if i had one would probably be:
1. Christians, probably, if it came up.
2. racists
3. those who drink a lot
4. those who have extremely high heels and try to accentuate it, otherwise I probably wouldn't notice
5. I suppose that there will be any number of physical qualities I would find unattractive, most of these are things like obvious deformities so I don't know if they count.
5. Republicans, luckily I don't live in the U.S anymore so I don't need to worry
6. Annoying fucking american tourists who end every sentence with a question mark out of, presumably, some mistaken impression that it makes them sound sophisticated. Is English their primary language?
maybe a reasonable Republican who wasn't going to vote for GW this year
For friends, sure. One night stand, definitely. For dating, nope. Too many instances of having to qualify remarks with "present company excluded, of course." I have too much to say to have to constantly drop ten gratuitous syllables.
------------------------------
How sad! More evidence of the metsatasis of politics and ideology into the personal sphere. Do you all really spend enough free time inveighing against the gummint that such considerations become powerful?
Girls who, wishing to date me (given), need not apply. A non-exhaustive list.
1. Girls over 160lbs.
2. Girls with weird boobs.
3. Goths.
4. Girls who like garth brooks, or anyone like him.
5. Girl's who drive SUVs, or a truck without an appropriate reason.
6. Republicans.
7. Non-atheists, or agnostics.
8. Girls with 'attitude.'
9. Girls who pepper their speach with 'like' or 'you know' or 'um.'
10. Girls who never use interesting sentences in speech.
11. Girls who talk about themselves often.
12. If not college, extensive self-education.
13. Girls whose clothing shows off their bodies, instead of accensuates it.
14. I can't envisgn myself dating a latino, or (proper) Indian, or Korean.
15. No Italians.
16. Girls with weird smells.
17. Girls who go natural.
18. pot-heads.
19. any other drug besides marijuana or alcohol.
20. Girls who don't read as a pastime.
That'll do for now.
You won't date girls who have an extensive self-education?
Michael, you've narrowed the field down to about 25 women world-wide. I hope one lives in your area.
Girls who pepper their speach with 'like'
Oh dear, how did I forget this one? I can live with "y'know" and "um," but the "like" issue is an enormous dealbreaker. Possibly exclusion criteria #1.
See, I can pretty much take care of this by saying that I won't date anyone who is
averse to dating a mega-geek
which narrows things down a lot, there. If you laugh at over half my jokes, there shouldn't be a problem, college or no. (Assuming you don't laugh at the things I say that aren't jokes, too.)
Reactions to FL's reactions:
1. Yes, it isn't the religion per se, it's the devout part.
3. "I have a thing for the respectable cloth coat, you see." Ha! Two points awarded.
3a. "I would date baa." I'd have cybersex with baa, but I think I'd have to draw the line there. Message me, you reasonable conservative, you.
6. "Emaciated also out." I second that. Too thin makes me think I'll break her by accident. I hate when that happens.
The lists come out. Somewhere, someone is clucking at us humorlessly.
This is excellent: I could totally go for a hot republican, especially a fiscally disciplined deficit hawk. (I have a thing for the respectable cloth coat, you see.) I would date baa, if he were a woman, but I couldn't date a family-values republican or Anne Coulter, even if she were a woman.
Honest to god, I know this is all meant to be tongue-in-cheek. And you know I have a sense of humor about sex. And that I'm shallow, too.
But. At the risk of being one of them there humorless feminists, the real problem with this whole thing is that it does sort of imply that women are there for you to pick and choose among, like items on a shelf. Mmmm, no, I don't care for that color... do you have another, in blue? With a slimmer profile?
I'm not laying some hippie trip about "judge people by their insides, man" on you. I'm quite okay with certain superficialities, and I agree with you about class. But I'm getting a vibe here that somehow being "honest" about prejudices is crossing the line into excusing them. There's a big difference between "I usually don't like..." and "I won't date..." "Insolence," I think, may be the word I'm looking for...
Here's a humorless defense. Implicit in much of this (e.g., "willingness to date a mega-geek") is the thought that our preferences are necessary but not sufficient for dating. I mean, women are there for potential partners to pick and choose from, just as men are; and people of both sexes have preferences and rules and "no, that one's too fat" requirements. For what it's worth, which isn't much, my point about particularism was meant to suggest that these are all defeasible guidelines, not (true) necessary conditions.
11.5 humorless cluckers are a species of the Overly Earnest, and I can't stand those. World-savers will be regarded with suspicion, and the high-mindedly pious (theist or no) are probably a no-go.
Also, freaky, but not too freaky.
Didn't Billy Bragg once sing "I've had relations/with girls from many nations"? I think later in the song he said "I look like Robert DeNiro/ I drive a Mitsubishi Zero" and that makes up for being sort of earnest.
Shit! A girl! Check your fly!
I'm getting a vibe here that somehow being "honest" about prejudices is crossing the line into excusing them.
Yeah, that's true, and Julie makes a similar point here. I have to take the blame for that, for making a provocative list the heart of the post, rather than just getting into the issue of conservatism and demands that reasons be articulated. Although, if I'd written it in a responsible way, only baa would have commented. And I won't lie, I'm getting a kick out of the lists, particularly Michael's, because he's nuts. (I'm also enjoying Fontana trying to play while staying on the side of respectability.)
It's strange to have geek-boy fun in the open, but that's the real defense, I think: no one who's here isn't a blog-reading geek, so we all know that there's no picking and choosing going on, and it's a funny exercise that might get us talking about something interesting.
it does sort of imply that women are there for you to pick and choose among, like items on a shelf
I've not found that attitude to be remotely gender-specific. I'm sure with enough time, I could locate the female version of this conversation in multiple places on LiveJournal. However, the implication you cite is true, frankly. People are there for us to pick and choose like items on a shelf (again, gender/orientation is irrelevant here), particularly in the United States of Consumerica. That's why arranged marriages have mostly disappeared from this society.
However, I'm at a loss to explain why, for example, Russians or Koreans or Latinas made anybody's list as a group. That does seem, well, suspect...
Uh-oh, is there picking and choosing, or is there not picking and choosing? Get your stories straight before simultaneous posting, co-bloggers!
How they're compatible: Fontana uses the term strictly, in the sense of making decisions based on one's preferences; I (and B, I think) use it idiomatically, in the sense of "having one's pick."
apostropher: Oh, it's not gender-specific. It's obnoxious when women do it, too. But I am gonna stick to the feminist party line that the implication is different when men do it.
Yes, that's what I meant about picking and choosing. In the colloquial sense.
As to the question about overcoming prejudices: my recommendation is sex chat. Meet people who are smart and who you don't know what they look like or what their jobs are, and wait 'til you're sexually obsessed before you ask for a picture. Might dampen your libidio a bit, but it might also stretch your mind. Worth a try, no?
Why no Russians: Russian women are, in my experience, possessed of an irremediable sadness, and I'm too sensitive a boy to have that around me.
Also, they're like bananas: ripe for about five minutes. :)
(Seriously, as Fontana says, of course these are defeasible conditions; my ex-fiancee was half-Russian after all--yeah, that's the ex half, and not the fiancee half, but still.)
Wonder if you could say more about sex chat helping to overcome prejudices. I just had a few months long internet--then telephonic--romance with a charming lady (who 's picture I've never seen), and I kept catching myself being even more judgmental and difficult than I am in person.
This thread is making me ever more uncomfortable. Is it too late to wrench it back into an Oakeshott-influenced discussion of non-rationalist decision-making?
Probably not. But maybe I can derail it briefly by making a anti-feminism as popularly conceived but ultimately humanist (and thus pro-feminist!) point. I would concede that male picking and choosing has a *different* social implication and influence than female picking and choosing. But isn't the characterization of this difference as a vector quantity, with the arrow pointing towards "worse" when men do it, representative of a deep error in modern feminism, an error that spawns other errors?
Tell the history of western political systems as a long, sad narrative of sexism, with men up and women down, and I can't quite disagree. Ascribing the same model to the relations between the sexes, however, seems to flatten and warp a much subtler dynamic. Surely women and men have been are equals in the breaking of heats. And that's what's really at stake here.
On topic, my list is, of course:
1. My wife.
Seriously though, James Dickey, in the most romantic section of Deliverance has his protagonist say something like the following: "I was always lookng for that connection, and when I found a woman with a spark of that, I married her." [note: extremely indirect quotation]
This seems to me fundamentally correct. If you are so fortunate to stumble upon a person who, miracle of miracles, basically connects with you, can understand, however, incompletely, your take on things, and with whom a mutual physical attraction springs up (and it will, of course), get hitched. I think, like Fontana, this list construction is more likely to hinder than help the finding of such connections. Most of us understanding very poorly what about ourselves is important.
Agreed with Fontana, these are necessary, not sufficient, conditions. Two more I can't believe I forgot (though already mentioned)
21. No smokers.
22. No emaciates.
and,
23. sex-chatters.
Also important to note is that we are just now explicitly formulating these lists. Before, at least for me, the existed as sort of floating axiomated guidelines. There is that image of a women with the 'shopping list' for her man, which I believe is worse than what I am doing, which is merely making explicit a lot of preferences I have accumulated over time and dating. I also feel self-righteous because I conscientiously didn't mark out class. Of course, good luck to a girl from a trailer park meeting all of my demands.
I figure I'll defend 23 a bit. Part of what all of these restrictions imply is an interest in the whole aesthetic quality of another person - looks, hobbies, mental development, culture. I'm not interested in anything less than a combination of all of that, and I couldn't be interested in someone else who was. Sex chat is less; you are only exchanging desires and perhaps a little learned discussion.
About time we got a woman's list around here.
1. No hicks, frat boys, or gangsters.
2. No SUVs, trucks, or loud sports cars
3. No religious people.
4. No republicans/conservatives
5. Can't be apathetic about food/or can't cook/ anyone who considers spam a regular meal.
6. No hairy men.
7. Can't be lazier than me. (no sloths)
8. Can't live with his parents, or in a cardboard box under the bridge.
9. No moochers.
10. No smokers.
11. No gross colloquialisms for sexual functions. ('nutting")
12. No violent people.
13. No corporate career guys.
14. Must be at least 5'8"
15. No vanilla sex.
16. no pro-lifers.
17. no one who demands to be the social center of attention.
18. no bad hygiene.
19. well educated is a must
20. no committment phobes
21. no homophobes.
22. no masoginists.
23. vivid curiosity is a must.
24. no one under 21.
25. no guys with bad tattoos.
26. right now, no one explicitly looking for a wife.
27. no big butts.
28. no guys who wear pleated chinos
29. no mullets.
30. must have all his teeth, preferably in more or less a single line.
31. no body builder types.
Well, I'm out on her 6. Who wants Michael's girlfriend?
Not apostropher--29.
It's a good thing "no faulty parallelism" isn't on that list, or Michael wouldn't have a chance.
I still maintain that your list is faultily put together, ogged. Some items are things which you object to per se, but others are symptoms of something else, and it's that thing you object to. But if pressed you can produce that thing--why not just say that? This is especially so since you admit that the entries are defeasible: the way the list appears now, it's not clear whether or not that's an acknowledgement that the symptoms aren't always indicative of the disease, or whether sometimes the disease is acceptable.
I mean, if you think that Russian women are inconsolably sad, and that sadness is the reason you wouldn't want to date one, why not put "no women possessed of an irremediable sadness (I find that this eliminates Russian women)" on the list? Now we know not only what you actually object to, but also your heuristic for determing the presence of that thing. Bonus prize: if you then discover some other symptom of irremediable sadness, you're already covered!
Same thing with Michael's Latina thing: unless there's something about the ancestry itself that bothers him, I would assume that it makes the list because his generic image of a Latina has an assortment of other traits to which the actual objection applies. Why not just list those?
If you are so fortunate to stumble upon a person who, miracle of miracles, basically connects with you, can understand, however, incompletely, your take on things, and with whom a mutual physical attraction springs up (and it will, of course), get hitched.
On that basis, I should have married at least 5 of my male friends. One of whom is already married to my best friend. And that just doesn't work (regardless of how often guys wish it did).
And yeah, I have a list - it's roughly half of Michael's girlfriend's list. But not a one of them is based on what the guy wears. That's why I was so curious about the whole "wears high heels" thing.
I also have a list of preferences - it includes red-heads and slender hands with long fingers. But it's a preference list only, not a requirement list. I have a very definite physical type for what I perve on, but all of my long term boyfriends haven't actually met that type. I typically date for a sense of humour - if you have that, chances are I'll like you enough to date you.
This has been a fascinating discussion - I think you're all completely mad, but fascinating nonetheless. *g*
-OLS
Hmmm, can ogged be found here? (Found from googling "hairy iranian")
Faulty parallelism, ben? You mean my 12 & 13? I meant girls who are educated, and I have a rather conservative understanding of clothing that accentuates.
The latino thing...it surely is a bit of a stereotype, but beyond the stereotypical latina attitude, I'm afraid I don't like the accent (there are others I don't like, including Italian).
don't quite get the "faulty parallelism" bit, I'm afraid. As for 19, I suppose I should have put a "uses" in front of that - I don't really care about experimentation.
But just in case you do catch me in something:
"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.) "
Actually, it should have been "users of". The list is one of girls. Drugs other than pot and alcohol aren't girls. "Uses drugs other than pot and alcohol" is a predicate, I guess, but not a girl.
The sex chat thing was a joke. Sort of. All I meant was that I find it is an interesting way of finding out a lot about a person, abstracted from distracting things like, oh, say, whether they wear makeup or ugly shoes.
'Course, it introduces a new set of totally superficial dividing lines. Like I find it really hard to tolerate people who spell "your" as "ur."
Michael, you underestimate sex chat. Trust me ;)
Have you head of being charatable to whom you're reading, nit-pick?
This thread will not close with w-lfs-n dragging it down into a discussion of the grammar of lists. (Though Michael really should sober up before commenting again.)
And Ben, the problem is this: if pressed you can produce that thing--why not just say that?
Because, if pressed, I make a decent guess, but that's all it is--that was kinda the point of the post: we can try to say what it is about this or that that makes us uncomfortable, but the saying is often some absurd claim--like that Russians are irremediably sad--that nevertheless has real force in our lives.
I rather thought things would be better if Ben started drinking, as opposed to me being sober. (which I am, malheursement)
Anyway, Ogged, if I understand you, the problem is that you're absurd. Not wholly absurd, of course, but just parts. That's understandable.
BitchPHD, sex involves much repitition of certain actions, and I'm afraid my linguistic skills would fail to be able to retain another's interest in quite the same way when confronted with the same necessity of repitition.
I wouldn't date anybody who, upon asked to write a list of men she wouldn't date, would happen to stress ethnicity.
Like Ben W., I think it is more intelligent to think about the kind of underlying attributes that make one attracted to or repelled by certain human groups, particularly human groups that are as diverse as the general population.
In other words, if X doesn't like conservatives, I'm with X. (X doesn't like them because politics matters to X deeply, and because conservatives happen to be on the other end of the political spectrum. The prospect of leading a healthy life with someone who is your antagonist in an area that you are passionately invested in is not very good.) But when you say you don't like Asians in general, I'd say you are either being incredibly superficial, or incredibly silly. There must be something about the archetype (in your head) about Asian women that is not appealing to you, and it is that which you should try to pin down and mention, not an ethnicity. That is, unless I'm right about your being a incredibly superficial or incredibly silly.
I'm interpreting, by the way, all of these statements not as "I'm not likely to date people who are X", but as real items in the checklists of your commenters. And if this is the case, then this is a really revealing (re: ethnicity, eating habits, and all sorts of superficial silliness), albeit incredibly sad, thread.
Now you're just being lazy, ogged.
I do have a checklist. I took it with me on dates. Strangely, it seemed to put men off, just as pedro suggests. It was on a big clipboard that I thought gave the whole thing a pleasing air of bureaucratic whimsy.
Do you think I should maybe use a PDA instead, the next time I go out? It would be a bit more subtle.
No, subtle's the wrong way to go. Keep the list in your head and blast an air horn every time he violates a rule.
Hunh. I was expecting an air horn blast. You're a woman of exceeding mystery, WinnaZibba.
Oh it certainly be a bit more subtle, winna. Only you'll have to watch out for men in whose own checklist "women with PDA's" figures prominently.
And remember, if he violates a characteristic (eg, is too short), just keep blasting the horn until he leaves.
This is totally going in my movie.
Unfortunately, if he likes airhorns, this strategy may backfire.
69: However, if you pre-emptively added "Doesn't like airhorns" to your list, you could create an infinite feedback loop and perhaps travel through time.
Er, "likes airhorns," rather. Otherwise, that comment would just be silly.
I think it would be best if I found someone who liked airhorns but had woman-with-PDA on his checklist, so the attraction/revulsion would be so great the poor boy would fly to pieces and we could all have a hearty laugh.
And then pedro would spit on me and apo could put it in his movie and a' would be well.
Yes, all would be well, except that Pedro would have sold his salivary glands to buy me film for my camera and I'd have sold my camera to buy Pedro a spittoon. But then we'd realize the true meaning of Christmas and head off, all four of us arm in arm, to the Polyamory Prom.
That's so beautiful.
I can see it now: the twinkly lights dancing on the surface of the spittoon as we did whatever it is that one does at a Polyamory Prom. I'm betting it involves some killer games of Trivial Pursuit and fruit punch with Seven-Up.
How many kings and queens get crowned at the Polyamory Prom?
It's complex. You have to use a slide-rule and about fifteen different formulas. They used to let people use calculators but the Rules Committee decided that ruined the spirit of the thing.
