She is... a writer, so the writing... is vivid and engaging
This does not seem like valid reasoning to me. "She is a writer" does not imply "She is a good writer". Sounds like a fun book though.
I haven't turned down a date for over seven years. I don't see what the big deal is.
Yes but Emerson, have you ever refused a blowjob to a homeless French millionaire who thinks he's Jerry Lee Lewis? Get back to me when you have.
Have you been asked on a date in the last seven years?
She is... a writer, so the writing... is vivid and engaging
This does not seem like valid reasoning to me. "She is a writer" does not imply "She is a good writer". Sounds like a fun book though.
It seems that ogged's reasoning might be, This is not merely an interesting story by a random nonwriter who decided to go on 150 dates in one year, but is, incidently, an interesting story that happened to a writer -- which is lucky for us.
Also, by "writer," ogged probably has in mind "good writer," not "someone who is published."
Presumably, we have had this conversation before, but is there no fix for your line breaks killing all html tags?
The editorial review on Amazon describes this as "sheer chick fluff." Sounds like something ogged might like.
Chefs licker huff. Sounds like something Ogged might like.
Urple, don't be a dick. You know that ogged hasn't had any chyck's fluff in quite a while.
Chris, my book would be a short one.
I might try this myself, and write my own "Year of Yes" book. Except instead of saying "yes" to everyone who asks me for a date (which would be a short book), I'm just going to spend a year asking everyone I want on a date and then absolutely refusing to take "no" for an answer.
okay, this isn't chick lit (sorry guys, i know you are disappointed), but : do any of you read the Institute for the Future of the Book blog? they have a poor title but are interested in intersections of technology, cultural studies,and literary culture; i'd bet a lot of you would like reading it. just look
here.
The Year of "'No' really means 'Yes'"?
Josh Micah Marshall has said what I was trying to say about Iran.
But for those of us trying to think through how to deal with this situation, we have to start from the premise that there is no Iran Question, or whatever you want to call it. There's only how to deal with Iran with this administration in place.
Do you trust this White House's good faith, priorities or competence in dealing with this situation?
Based on everything I've seen in almost five years the answer is pretty clearly 'no' on each count. To my thinking that has to be the starting point of the discussion."
OT here, but the Iran threat thread has been overwhelmed by terrorists using American football chat as cover -- there are probably some coded messages in there.
OT here
You're an offensive tackle, John?
Wait OT = offensive tackle = football chat = coded messages. So OT probably means "original terrorist."
(I agree about Iran, pretty much, although the potshot Drum took at Niall Ferguson gives me some hope he at least won't be Charlie Browned.)
She is, after all, a writer, so the writing, though a bit precious, is vivid and engaging....>
The implied contrast is with Bill Wyman, who wrote a boring book about the year he spent screing everything that walked.
One of you guys needs to spend a year striking up conversations with every woman you meet--homeless women, baristas, waitresses, whoever--and then asking out anyone who seems friendly. Then write a book about it.
From the Amazon page:
Customers who viewed this book also viewed:
* The Best American Erotica 2005
I guess it is the dating equivalent of porn: pizza guy shows up, asks her out, she says yes, etc.
Bphd: no one wants to read a book about me sitting at home on the couch alone.
bphd, my instinct is that this would run aground on different gender roles. Maria Davahna Headley (sp?) didn't have to date anyone who hadn't already shown interest. Whereas, guy who asks out every woman who seems friendly, that just says to me "Total skeeze or desperado who will piss a lot of women off."
You'd probably have to rule out store clerks, waitresses, etc. who may be required by company policy to be friendly (I think I've seen that some employees complain that mandatory-smile policies encourage male customers to think they're flirting.)
But the skeeze factor has come up before, and ogged's howling women friends might not mind it so much. So, ogged should definitely do this.
Matt, I think it would, too--which is why it would be interesting, right? And you'd have to be careful about the whole store clerk thing for sure; kind of the inverse of Headley's "be friendly to everyone" approach.
I only commented b/c ever since Ogged mentioned the book, I've been fascinated by thinking about how it would be basically impossible for a guy to write it, and trying to think of how to get around that....
I mean, men don't get asked out, but obviously this "fear of making conversation with women" thing is a big deal. Is it just a fear of making conversation with attractive women? And then wouldn't part of the interest of the book lie in figuring out whether or not, in fact, women-in-general/attractive-women/young-women etc., do view men talking to them as threatening, and under what circumstances?
b,
i think part of it is that men are afraid of being seen as sketchy and/or afraid of rejection. Not every guy wants to be known as the guy who asks everyone out. Plus, on the whole this seems like a rather stupid book. What happens when you meet someone you actually like when you strike up a conversation with that hot chick at the library or wherever? Do you ignore it for the sake of your book?
chick = girl. please excuse my slip right there. thanks.
BPhD:
There are tons of books by men who do this. They're normally called something like, "How to Score with Tons of Chicks," or "Get Laid All the Time." (Or even The Complete Asshole's Guide to Handling Chicks and The System: How to Get Laid Today!.) Saturation bombing is a pretty well-known technique.
This is probably why 40 days and 40 nights was such a hit. Because no man, IRL, goes 40 days without sex.
Because no man, IRL, goes 40 days without sex.
Preach it, tweedle!
29: I've known a couple of guys like that (one or two in college, a college friend of Mr. Breath's) and they aren't necessarily assholes, they just have no fear of rejection. Making a pass at every woman you meet only gets you anywhere one time in twenty or so; but if you're really indiscriminate, it's not impossible to find twenty women to make a pass at in a fairly short period of time.
I think the only reason you couldn't write a book like this from the male perspective is the double standard -- while a woman dating indiscriminately comes off as sort of wacky, kind, and open, a guy trying to do something similar would look either pathetic (if he couldn't get the hang of simply approaching enough women) or cruel (dating a lot of women he had no interest in.)
No, I don't mean "How to score with hot chicks." I mean, an honest sort of memorish thing. Obviously the fear of rejection would be huge, which raises the question: why don't women normally say yes to everyone who asks? I'd say it's partly fear--but of what? I mean, I'm not consciously afraid that if I go on a date with the guy at the autoshop, he's going to rape me, but it makes me uncomfortable when he asks. So obviously part of the appeal of The Year of Yes is her conscious decision to suspend that problem. I really wonder what would happen if a guy tried to consciously suspend his selection criteria and his fear of rejection....
29: Or Seduce and Destroy. But I think Bphd is imagining something where the man is not just trying to score lots of chix, but actually dating -- like the Year of Yes woman.
ac's link is more like that, esp. because that guy is all about being sensitive unlike the asshole's guides, but it still seems different from a Year of Asking Out Absolutely Everyone.
But 27 presents a problem.
I don't mean "How to score with hot chicks."
I think Bphd is imagining something where the man is not just trying to score lots of chix
Yeah boy. Any more questions about what women are thinking, just direct them here. (Right now they're thinking, "Guys who brag about knowing what women are thinking are losers.")
What happens when you meet someone you actually like when you strike up a conversation with that hot chick at the library or wherever?
I wondered that with this book, too; presumably it's discussed at one point, but what if she met a nice guy early on? Does she stand him up for her next random date, or?
I think a book like this could work from the male perspective. There's a few out there, but they seem to concentrate on 'scoring'. But if someone were to write a book explaining how he decided to ignore his usual dating rules, or someone shy explaining how he decided he was tired of sitting at the bar whining, there'd probably be a market for that.
It wouldn't have the so-called shock value; women generally don't ask men out nearly as often, so part of the fun of The Year of Yes I imagine is the take-charge, see-what-happens aspect of her dating project.
I think it would be cool to embark on a project of just asking out every guy that I find remotely intriguing, and see what happens with that.
I don't think this book premise sounds that great. How "take charge" is it really to just say yes to everyone? You're still sitting there until people ask you out.
Isn't this simply an 'I used to be shy but then I opened up' story? If so, aren't they a dime a dozen?
Or is this the precise time at which one could take out the old chestnut, polish it up, and make a killing?
I'm asking because I could tell that story. I've lived it. Since I'm currently in a commited relationship I can't recreate it though.
so part of the fun of The Year of Yes I imagine is the take-charge, see-what-happens aspect of her dating project.
Shouldn't this rather read: be indiscriminate, see what happens?
Mmm. I'm not sure I buy the distinction the B and Weiner are drawing. I think both are implicitly mis-describing the way the dating scene is structured. I think there is a much stronger presumption that women who agree to a date are not going to want to go to bed with you than that men who ask a woman out are not going to go to bed with you. That matters, though I can't quite say why.
someone shy explaining how he decided he was tired of sitting at the bar whining
If you've made it to a bar and are talking to someone, you aren't really that shy.
But if someone were to write a book explaining how he decided to ignore his usual dating rules, or someone shy explaining how he decided he was tired of sitting at the bar whining, there'd probably be a market for that.
I think you'd still have a gender-role problem that would make the guy look like a bastard. The problem is that in the standard 50's dating story, by asking a woman out, a guy is affirming that he is genuinely into her. For a guy to date women he isn't actually into, indiscriminately, makes him look like a heartless bastard should one of the women decide that she's into him: she's been tricked into exposing herself to rejection. (Come to think of it, I bet this has something to do with the "is this a 'date', or are we just hanging out?" problem.)
I don't think this is fair, particularly, but it would look bad.
I think there is a much stronger presumption that women who agree to a date are not going to want to go to bed with you than that men who ask a woman out are not going to go to bed with you. That matters, though I can't quite say why.
That's because ovaries are generally considered the scarce resource in mating markets.
Yeah, I mixed up what I was going to say.
Whatever.
Does she say whether she tells the guys about the book?
There wasn't a book at the time. She says she did this when she was 20 or 21 and sick of dating NPR-listening nerdy types, and wrote the book later when people said "That would be a great book."
For a guy to date women he isn't actually into, indiscriminately, makes him look like a heartless bastard should one of the women decide that she's into him: she's been tricked into exposing herself to rejection.
It wouldn't work the same way, since you're right, there's a perception that women will date anyone who asks them and isn't outright repulsive, but men only ask out women they really want to sleep with, but that might be the selling point for a book. The writer could bill it as seeing what it was like to date like a woman, taking chances on people not immediately attractive, etc.
I dunno.
My 43 is addressing the same thing as Tim's 41 -- a woman who accepts an offer of a date hasn't made any further committment. A guy who asks a woman out has (again, in the 50's dating story -- I'm not saying this is a good rule) implicitly promised to take matters as much further as she wants to go.
So, to truly have a counterpart book, some guy who felt that his criteria weren't working for him would have to embark on this in order to shake up his dating strategies. In an authentic effort to find love. Then later he could use his notes to write a heartwarming book in which he reveals....
that true love was there the whole time.
With a signed permission slip from BPhd explaining that I am not a skeezy guy, but am a strong feminist male trying to redefine masculinity, maybe I'd be willing to do the experiment. The tricky part would be getting the experimental subject sign the legal release.
50/51 following on 47, just because I'm an asshole.
there's a perception that women will date anyone who asks them and isn't outright repulsive
Is this true? I thought the perception was that men are much more indiscriminate at asking people out and women had to perfect their brush-off techniques. Though perhaps the perception is that this is so because men are perceived to want to sleep with anything in a skirt, anyway.
That said it does seem as though initiating contact might commit the man to more than saying "OK" commits the woman to. Still, some guy somewhere has probably developed a graceful "Let's just be friends" speech.
Maybe you should make that a double-blind placebo test, John. It would put the whole "is this a date or hanging out?" thing on a whole new level.
BitchPhD says
"which raises the question: why don't women normally say yes to everyone who asks? I'd say it's partly fear--but of what? I mean, I'm not consciously afraid that if I go on a date with the guy at the autoshop, he's going to rape me, but it makes me uncomfortable when he asks. "
Dare I say that it is exactly the same thing you constantly berate men about --- you don't like their look?
Their "look" includes physical appearance, of course, but also the extent to which they look intellectual or otherwise, wealthy or otherwise, and so on.
I have no idea what your type is, but I suspect that if this strange man who asked you out matched your type --- had the right physical appearance and the accessories that implied the right level of education and wealth --- your reluctance would be rather less.
You're right and she's wrong, Weiner. There is no such presumption.
27,37: re what happens when the people doing this fall in love, the "girl agrees to [dare/bet/plan] with friend to date acceptably large number of boys and falls in love with one of the earlier dates" is a pretty standard plot of romance writing aimed at pre-teens (almost all romances starring teens is actually aimed at 10-12 year olds).
The acceptably large number in question seems to be about 10, and typically one is meant to fall in love with number 3. One's sense of pride should keep one in the game, possibly secretly, until about number 7 while one realises the full extent of one's passion for number 3 and also all but destroys the changes of seeing him again, thus providing us with the second half of the book.
So I can only assume that people who do this kind of thing are unusually hard hearted. Or that number 3 really likes a good story at the expense of his fellows.
The project made me think of some lines from a Rachel Cusk novel:
She had often wondered what would happen if she took up the offers of the men who had commented upon her in the street. There was another world beneath the surface of the one she chose each day, a dark labyrinth of untrodden paths. Its proximity frightened her. She wondered if she would ever lose her way and wander into it.It had stayed in my mind as something that all women think about.
I think the reason most women don't say yes to anyone who asks is because of an implicit judgment that gets made of the very fact that they asked. It's different when the person asking is someone you sort of vaguely know, or at least have seen around on more than one occasion, but I at least am wary of someone who's hitting on me the very first time they see me (especially outside of, say, drunken bar context), and think they are either
a) desperate
b) indiscriminate (i'm moderately attractive, but not enough so that I feel some sort oh "oh my god I've got to talk to that girl" sentiment is at play)
c) fixated on Titty
So maybe it's the case of "wouldn't want to be part of a club that would have me as a member" sort of thing. I guess I personally prefer to pursue men rather than have them pursue me. Then again, I don't pursue shit. So, fat lot of goo it does me.
56: no no, Bitch PhD raised a really interesting question, and it's not just that she's thinking of men who aren't her type, Maynard. (that is, not to read your mind, bphd, but i get the feeling and i bet most women get that little moment of "squeeve? what?")
what does that moment consist of?
a. yes, some generalized vague fear/awareness alert, you're right...
b. the surprise of having to switch how you're looking at someone, since i consider far fewer aspects of the human-ness & personhood of an acquaintance vs. a person i might date
c. some discomfort with suddenly being sexualized, or being openly seen as sexual. some surprise even, a feeling of "so, how am i being looked at here?"
d. just the discomfort of knowing someone wants something from you. and it's not clear what the thing they want is, but they certainly want to be dealt with in a personal way
and then the [huh? squeeve?] moment passes, and maybe even one goes on to be thrilled and accept, or whatever, but there is definitely that quick little gut-instinct "?!" moment first.
I am not being clear, but here's what I think the perception is.
Women are more likely to accept a date with someone they are not definitively attracted to just to 'see how it goes', but men rarely ask out women just to see what happens.
e.g. Woman (to a girlfriend): He's not really my type, physically, but he seems sweet enough, and who knows? It could be fun.
Man (to a different friend): I'm not really attracted to her, physically, but I figure we might have a good time, so I asked her out.
I think the Woman is more likely to look like she's fun and open-minded, where the Man is probably looking a bit sleazy (I'll fuck anything that moves) or desperate (I don't like her much, but I'm really lonnnely.).
And I think this stems from the perception that women are less discriminating in their preferences in physical beauty.
I "constantly berate" men? Come on.
Having said that, yes, of course my sense that I won't date the auto shop guy is partly classist. It's also, though, partly about social norms exclusive of class (sort of): that is, one doesn't accept invitations from complete strangers, and the kind of guy who will ask out a woman he has just meant is violating that rule. I think that women learn to treat even minor violations of social rules w/r/t dating as potentially threatening (rape culture and all that), so it makes sense that, in that context, one would be wary of men one doesn't have some connection to (a mutual friend, work in the same industry, whatever).
But of course, what's interesting about the Year of Yes book is that we know, in fact, that the vast majority of men are not stalkers/rapists/serial killers, and that the problem of meeting people who aren't in one's immediate social circle is a real one. It's therefore an interesting experiment. I suppose the real reason I'm interested in a guy's side of this is that I'm assuming that, for men, the worry about "I don't know anything about this person" is less--but that because men are supposed to play the role of the person who asks, that other kinds of selection criteria come into play.
(Btw, don't forget that I'm the woman who dated guys I met in internet chat rooms, sight unseen, for a summer. And who fell in love with one of 'em. In that case, of course, my selection criteria was "can write.")
#36: Well, when the guy is interpreting something the woman has, in fact, actually said, I don't think it's quite the presumption you're fearing ;)
Perception? I'd say reality. I've been dating up my entire life.
67: Oddly, that's been my experience, too; looking at most of my married/coupled friends, in general, the woman is more conventionally physically attractive.
It pretty much is 'women pretty, guy is carrying an extra 10% body weight. She still is attracted to him.' I can't think of a couple I know where the guy is mr. washboard abs and the girl is pleasantly plump.
69: That's actually not infrequently the case in black and hispanic couples.
#36: Well, when the guy is interpreting something the woman has, in fact, actually said, I don't think it's quite the presumption you're fearing ;)
I hadn't seen your 35 when I wrote my 36.* I admit that this would have been funnier if 36 posted before 35.** I blame the patriarchy.
*w-lfs-n wouldn't send me the picture.
**dthat[36] before dthat[35], for you philosophy of language geeks.
B's hypothetical male could just move to Sweden.
#70, Jamie Foxx has a penchant for larger girlfriends, and in his Barbara Walters interview, said of one of them that when they walked down the street together they resembled the number 10.
, in general, the woman is more conventionally physically attractive
Per Handley, the question is, does this remain true even when you control (for example) for differential income expectations of the man and the woman?
69: That's actually not infrequently the case in black and hispanic couples.
Yikes, I'm having trouble passing this through my parser.
But geez Louise, is there still somebody surprised that men care more about looks when selecting a date than women do? I thought this was a commonly known fact.
So are we saying that (white) unattached men are on average better-looking than (white) unattached women? That seems to be where we're going if we think that in (white) couples the woman is usually better-looking than the man, unless we just want to say women are better-looking than men in general.
My point being, this sounds pretty anecdotal, and if we're being anecdotal I have some hott Maureen Dowd pictures to prove that the good-looking women are not all getting hoovered up.
Women are generally better looking than men, both because they put more effort into it and because we're conditioned to associate women with teh sex. Also, I don't necessarily think the dating dynamic is so different in black and hispanic couples and b+h menfolk are more open-minded; the operative variable is what's considered attractive in women.
Once you're past menopause, I don't think you're officially a woman. (Ducks.)
Notice my interesting choice of pronouns in the last comment. Maybe I am really a 47 year old balding man.
Matt,
Wow, if I could make a leap that great I'd win the next Olympics!
And the reason Maureen is not 'hooked up' is not her looks. Her looks are fine. It is something else.
(78 was to 76, and regarded Dowd, obviously. And also a joke. Obviously.)
Tia,
In general (yes, yes, we can all cite exceptions thank you very much) women look better because that is what men want and men earn more money because that is what women want and BOTH men and women want to be attractive to the opposite sex.
That is how we got to the top of the food chain. It may be good or it may be bad but it is a fact.
I thought we got to the top of the food chain by killing the dinosaurs.
#77: What Tia said. Women look better than their male partners because women spend more time and money on how they look than men do. Mostly.
#75: The question re. who cares more about looks is does that have anything to do with who is supposed to be in charge of making the initial selection? I think it's really weird that we seem to be the one animal species where it's the women, rather than the guys, who are supposed to use looks to attract a mate. And I have a strong suspicion that this has to do with the fact that looks = status (for women) while for men, it's other things (including how good the guy's woman looks) that = status.
#82: Again, *why* do people want this? Presumably a big reason women want men with money is that men have more economic power than women do; if this weren't the case, it wouldn't matter nearly so much (and I suspect that more and more, as women succeed in the professions, that we care about this a lot less). And I really think the reason guys want women who look good is that good looking women reflect status on the man.
85: I think that may have been in jest.
Maybe I am really a 47 year old balding man.
Hence the secret weiner.
Fair enough. I've been pretending to be Harry Potter all day, along with cooking and prepping for tomorrow's class, and my brain may not be functioning so well by this point....
And I really think the reason guys want women who look good is that good looking women reflect status on the man.
I'm reasonably confident that the reason I want a woman who looks good is because I like fucking good-looking women. And I'm reasonably confident that the status having a good looking woman bestows on me is secondary: most men like fucking good-looking women, so I have something they desire and want to emulate, which is the basic foundation of status.
This seems pretty straightforward to me.
A lot of guys who are really into sex per se aren't so much into good looks. ("If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, make an ugly woman your wife".) For one thing, sex is more tactile and looks are more visual. But if people see you with a hott woman, you score points even if she's no fun at all.
Also, I don't necessarily think the dating dynamic is so different in black and hispanic couples and b+h menfolk are more open-minded; the operative variable is what's considered attractive in women.
Yes, exactly.
#75: The question re. who cares more about looks is does that have anything to do with who is supposed to be in charge of making the initial selection?
Yup, that was my point. It's easier to tell quickly whether one finds someone physically attractive or not than it is to determine if they have a good sense of humor, or make enough money, or how they treat other people. (Blah, blah, in terms of hey, I just met you, want to go for coffee?)
If women have been conditioned to expect that money/humor/treatment are what drives 'attractiveness' in men, it would make sense that they'd accept dates with less than desirable physical specimens, because you'll need to go on the date to gauge what is considered important.
A guy who does the same thing (LB's point way back when) will seem insincere, because the expectation is that if he goes to the trouble to arrange a date, he's already attracted.
A lot of guys who are really into sex per se aren't so much into good looks.
I'd like to see your evidence for this. The only (ancedotal) evidence I'm aware of suggests exactly the opposite -- guys who are really just into sex are purely more concerned about good looks than anything else.
My evidence that looks = status is that you rarely see wealthy men dating women who are very attractive but not expensively groomed. And that we tend to think "expensively groomed" = "pretty." Which it obviously doesn't.
I don't think anyone really has to think very hard to come up with examples of extremely attractive, but mousy/shy/unfemmey women who seem to get dates very rarely. Or alternate examples of women who are perfectly okay looking, but in fact not especially gorgeous, who nonetheless get a lot of attention because they have nice hair, clothes, and makeup.
Of course looks equal status, but you seemed to be saying, b, that men want good-looking women primarily because of status, whereas it seems pretty clear to me (and Urple), that status is secondary to just finding good looks pleasing.
92: Jude Law. Obviously he's really into sex. His public girlfriend is very conventionally pretty in a spectacularly unspecial way, i.e., great for status; his private tastes, at least in one publicized incident, apparently run cute-ish, curvy, not so conventionally pretty.
Also, Tomas in The Unbearable Lightness of Being, who became a "curiousity collector" in his womanizing. Picking fictional characters is perhaps cheating, but I think that book was pretty consistently true.
Status is presumably secondary to finding good looks pleasing on a conscious level, obviously.
But I still maintain that if you pay attention to who the rich guys are dating, you'll discover that a lot of the women aren't especially attractive (but are expensively groomed, so they look like they're attractive in a superficial way). And if you look around at who the non-rich guys are dating, you'll find a number of very pretty women whose attractiveness doesn't get a lot of attention because they're not playing it up.
I think the mistake here is pretending that there is some always existing rootedness to any of the status signifiers. For men, money is status, and it helps attract women. There are some obvious reasons for considering money important, but that's not necessarily the only reason people value it. For women, looks are status, and it helps attract men. Again, there are obvious reasons for looks to be highly valued, but I don't think the obvious ones are the only ones.
Am I the only person here who has ever had a young man confess, in confidence, that he really liked some girl but wasn't sure about getting together with her because his friends didn't think she was hot?
Am I the only person here who has ever had a young man confess, in confidence, that he really liked some girl but wasn't sure about getting together with her because his friends didn't think she was hot?
I've never heard anything like that, and I'd be shocked to hear it from anyone I know. That's just stupid.
if you pay attention to who the rich guys are dating, you'll discover that a lot of the women aren't especially attractive (but are expensively groomed, so they look like they're attractive in a superficial way)
There are a lot of variables at work here, though. It depends when the guy became rich, for one thing. Maybe he wasn't rich when they married, but now that they're rich, she spends a lot of her time tending to herself in the ways that make people look plastic and gross. Maybe she was actually hot when she was younger, but since most really rich people are older, you don't think of the hot ones as also being rich. Probably some other permutations too. But now I'm finally going to see Brokeback Mountain.
Am I the only person here who has ever had a young man confess, in confidence, that he really liked some girl but wasn't sure about getting together with her because his friends didn't think she was hot?
I've never heard anyone say this, and I have trouble even imagining it being said by anyone over the age of 14.
I've heard guys say it more than once.
Evidence that people who are primarily interested in sex care less about looks: swingers. The bdsm crowd. Street prostitution.
I didn't see it but IIRC Neil LaBute's play Fat Pig (recently Off-Broadway, playing now in D.C.) was supposed to be about just that.
Right. Plus, the fact that "fat" women were considered teh hott just fifty years ago, and now it's the slim muscular ones. Obviously that isn't just some kind of natural expression of men's interest in good-looking women, since the definition of what's good-looking changes fairly dramatically over time.
103: Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with you globally, b, but I don't think that's a clear cut argument for the status case; men could just be conditioned to have different tastes now, but with aesthetics still as the primary operator.
Evidence that people who are primarily interested in sex care less about looks: swingers. The bdsm crowd. Street prostitution
I am not sure these are cases that represent the mainstream of male sexual desire, or even men primarily interested in sex. Rather, they represent freakish outliers who are either desperate, kinky, or have made sex the focus of their life in some unsual way. (Not that there's anything wrong with that! Ok, so I think there is, but a discussion for another time)
To generalize, in men the connection between visual stimulation and sexual desire is very, very tight. For most men, *just seeing* a woman of surpassing attractiveness in skimpy attire initiates sexual ideation/drool response in a way that a perfectly presentable woman does not. Now, it may be that the description of beauty that trips this switch is (dark chords) socially constructed, but the response, not so much, I suspect.
B and I must know different kinds of guys than the rest of you.
I don't think that there are any guys who would brag about being concerned with how good their girlfriend looks to others. It's more a confession, and seriously guys, no one is going to confess anything to ogged.
One example would be after a couple breaks up and the guy confesses that his hott partner had been frigid or otherwise not fun. He wouldn't do that in the middle of the relationship, and afterwards it would be in the context of complaining about her, rather confessing to superficiality.
The dialogue ogged reported a few days ago by a guy complaining about his trophy wife would be an example too.
Guys who are into scoring a lot might not be especially into sex. Just lots of wham / bam quickies.
Some of the guys I'm thinking of were black, and it may be anecdotal but I'm convinced that black guys have different standards of beauty. White women I've known with big butts verified the stereotype too.
BAA, you're cherry-picking the evidence.
Another way to put it is to say that if ogged were more into sex and less into looks his Tivo would have been reset long ago.
I'm going to see Fat Pig this weekend, I've heard good things about it.
109: I bow to no one in my ogged-mocking, but I don't think it's fair to say that he's too interested in looks. That can't account for this. We've seen pictures.
The guys I know set there Tivos more than daily if they're able to. That's what I was talking about.
Why the argument that, if men respond to (female) attractiveness, attractiveness is not therefore a manifestation of status? Does everyone agree on what "attractive" is, in all places and all periods? Obviously not. So therefore not only must it change, but it must change according to *some criteria that are socially meaningful in an other than biological sense*? Aren't we fairly comfortable with the recognition that an aesthetic sense in *all other areas* is, among other things, an expression of social status?
Plus, we all seem pretty okay with the idea that women go for guys with social status (expressed in various ways). Are men, like, a different species?
Guys who are into scoring a lot might not be especially into sex.
IM(limited)E, this tends to be true. The times I've slept with high-social-status/successful-player type guys, the sex has been somewhat perfunctory.
Us low-status guys are not cool with that, B, but who cares what we think?
I've got to side with B and Gandolf here. I haven't had friends admit they worried about what others thought of their potential girlfriend, but a couple have all but admitted that to me. There is some sort of system of meaning in place, and people worry about what it means if they make an unconventional, downscale choice. It isn't like this is limited to dating or anything; it's just not excepted from dating.
What I don't get is what people seem to be seeing anew here. Is there some conclusion y'all are drawing from this? People respond to incentives; many incentives are social constructions. Is there something more here?
I think Bphd was saying that we are okay with accepting that that is the truth, not that it should be the truth. (And, as mentioned in 36, I have mad insight into the feminine mind.)
I would now like to totally disprove that parenthetical by raising some questions about the whole "If a man asks a woman out he is obliged to be expressing sexual interest in her" thing. How big a foul is it not to press things at the end of a date? I've heard different stories from different female friends. Though the stories weren't quite contradictory: one said "If a guy didn't kiss me at the end of the [first/second? can't remember] date, I would feel like shit," and the other said "I wish you hadn't kissed me at the end of the second date."
Perhaps our hypothetical author could chat up anyone who seems friendly, and ask some of them out to low-pressure situations, like coffee dates?
117 to 115. I hit "preview" and saw that SCMT had commented, thus making a number necessary; but on preview the numbers were invisible, thus making it impossible for me to tell which number was necessary. Tragedy!
I don't think anyone is saying status has no role in the appeal of attractive women, Bphd. Not me, at least. But I do think its wrong to think that male focus on female attractiveness is not merely, or in most cases largely, a focus on a high status.
In my universe, no kiss on the second date is the no kiss of death.
I have no idea what #119 is saying.
#117: Yes, exactly. I'm hardly *approving* of the idea that status matters. In fact, I disapprove. But it is true that people mostly pair up with others in their own social class, and I do think that status/class matters a lot *more* than the things we say matter, like looks, money, etc. Pretty Woman is total fiction.
Pressing things at the end of a date is *always* a mistake. Signals, people, signals.
Ok, try again. Men want to be with attractive women primarilty because they are attractive. Secondarily, perhaps, because being with an attractive woman increases their status. So, yes, the secondary motive exists, but no it isn't the primary motive.
Think there is an extra negative in 119, if that accounts for the confusion.
Are 120 and the last paragraph of 119 in tension, do people think?
And, if a man asks a woman out to some date-like situation, they have a quite nice conversation etc., and he doesn't kiss her, and doesn't try to get another date, is she crushed? Is he a cad? Postulate that she has the level of interest in him that would ordinarily be required for a man to ask a woman out.
Typo-corrector, corect thycelf! What I mean to ask is if 120 and the last paragraph of 121 are in tension:
In my universe, no kiss on the second date is the no kiss of death.
Pressing things at the end of a date is *always* a mistake. Signals, people, signals.
yes they are, but can be reconciled. No kiss on the second (or maybe first) date is probably hard to overcome. That said, you ought to know by the kissing time whether or not it will be well received. In which case, if not, B suggests to run out the clock and go into the locker room with a bit of your dignity intact.
as to 123, I don't think the guy in question can be a cad unless you would argue that the female in the above scenario is a cad for not desiring a kiss at the end of the date. The date is a trial period for both parties. Neither party is locked in for making out.
The date is a trial period for both parties.
That's how I think it ought to be; which means that a guy could embark on the chatting-up-any-woman-who-seems-friendly project without being cruel as per 33, 41, 43, etc.
The problem of skeeviness has not yet been solved.
I hadn't read all those posts. When I've been single, in recent years, I've tended to chat up a lot of women. That differs from my college strategy, which was to get blinding drunk and see who takes advantage of me. Although that method worked on occasion, I never really felt as though I'd "scored."
I see nothing wrong with talking to lots of women, though I'd hold off the whistling. And if going on dates and not kissing the girl afterwards makes you an asshole, then I'm one, although I think there's much better evidence for that elsewhere.
#117: Yes, exactly. I'm hardly *approving* of the idea that status matters.
I'm not sure what this means. Status here seems to be a placeholder for a whole series of other "good qualities." It might mean cash, or looks, or education, or religious faith, or ethnic background, or some combination of the above. Status matters more than looks because it includes looks, among other things, as a component. If you change the components, status will still matter. It will just be made up of other components.
I do think that status/class matters a lot *more* than the things we say matter, like looks, money, etc.
Ehh. If you look at status/class in bands, I'd bet people mate among neighboring bands with some frequency. Poor boy grows up, goes to college, and marries the rich girl? Heard it. Genders switched? Heard it.
Pretty Woman is a fantasy for lots and lots and lots of reasons; I don't think anyone is confused about that. I'm not actually sure how it relates.
The no kiss/cad thing depends on expectations and prior knowledge, no? On a genuine getting-to-know-you date, certainly there's no obligation to try to kiss someone at the end. But if you know in advance that the other person is hot for you, then you probably ought not go on the date if you don't feel the same way because you'll either not kiss her, and crush her soft little heart, or you will kiss her, and make the eventual breakup that much worse.
Pretty Woman totally happened. To wit: An old rich fellow, not bad looking, rented out a whore for a period of time. She wasn't like anyone he'd ever met before. But he didn't ask her to marry him.
In how many cases can it be said that you genuinely know the other person is hot for you? Even if you did, and were uncertain about your own feelings, would it be improper to go on a date to see how things went? Or, conversely, if you were hot for the person, but things went badly, or you changed your mind for some reason during the date, would that make you a cad?
What if you were hot for the other person, but confidence failed for some reason? Or there were some mitigating factor against making out? Are you still a cad?
If so, I think lots of us are cads. Lots of us probably are cads, but for better reasons than that.
While looking for something to link with the phrase "misty water-colored memories" in response to 130, I found this:
I really do think you can coast through a couple more weeks on just your personal life.
snort.
and oh dear:
I can just see this thing turning from "amusing story" to "crushing Bobby Brady-level comeuppance."
But I actually think SCMT is right in the rest of that post:
Just ask her to meet up; if she is interested (and I don't think women are as impressed by the ability to dunk as men are), she'll sort out your disinterest as long as you can keep youself from making a pass at her.
It'll be rare, particularly if you're doing a year of chatting up any woman who seems friendly, that you'll know a woman is so into you that it'll break her tender heart if you don't kiss her at the end of the date. And in those circumstances, if you think you might be interested, you ought to find some way to audition her anyway; wouldn't she rather have a chance? So there won't be a lot of deliberate heartbreaking involved in such a project.
Also, this makes me feel less of a jerk for all the time I spend trying to egg Ogged into various dating schemes. So it's settled: Come spring when a young man's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love, Ogged starts his year of "hey, baby."
I've always known that I'm not attracted by looks so much as that smart sparkle in smart people's eyes.
Ha! Emerson pwned in 109!
Also, "unobjectionably earnest." And, of course, the first 100-comment thread.
I guess y'all should know that I reset the Tivo a while back and didn't tell you about it. Maybe if you'd been nicer to me, I would have shared. Suckas.
That's cool. Did you have sex, too?
Does anyone believe ogged? Show of hands?
Incidentally, I'm in the process of proving that I'm constitutionally incapable of doing a bad radio show, even with ~1 hour warning. I'm Dan Harmon and I shit gold.
OK, party's over.
(And that's nice.)
137: I'm not sure, but it's certainly possible, and it's much better to act as though he meant it if he didn't than vice versa.
give it up! it's never too late to talk about resetting the tivo.
Jesus, what will we talk about now?
I couldn't bring myself to tell you, since I knew it would feel like telling kids that there's no Santa Claus. Maybe Timbot can start a blog?
Not squeaky? How'd you meet? Human, domesticated animal, or wild?
Working link to Ben's show. The Dan Harmon line also didn't make sense to me.
Is it a good thing or a bad thing that my relentless teasing pushed Ogged into this revelation? I think it is bad that I can be so relentless.
Jesus, what will we talk about now?
Don't bring me into this. It wasn't my miracle.
Funny that you're the one asking.
Fuck. So I"m plumbing the depths of technical virginity by myself? Ah, well...I'll think of it as exploring new vistas, boldly going where no man, etc.
What are you smoking, Cristone? The link I gave works.
Dan Harmon is associated with Channel 101. The line is from a post to the forums he made that was turned into a song for him in the third episode of Channel 101: The Musical.
SCMT, have you considered spending a year asking out every woman who seems friendly?
(Note that meditating on my character flaws doesn't get me to do anything about them.)
So I'm plumbing the depths of technical virginity by myself?
Nothing left to do but start a blog.
My browser doesn't like your link without "stanford.edu" in between "zk." and "/index"—that Fluxus shit you listen to is getting to your head.
Ohhhhh. Right. That would explain that.
I feel so... listless and confused. Especially after this.
Yes, ogged has been foolin' us all. I wonder if his pseudonym is even "ogged".
My whole world is suddenly unstable.
I haven't changed, Ben. I will be your rock.
The business of guys resetting their Tivos several times a day wasn't meant as a model to live by, it was just a description of a guy who was primarily into sex, period -- with little attention to high standards, class, or looks. An ideal type only in a Weberian way.
I think that looks can be a marker for class or status to a certain extent, but a good-looking woman per se brings some status to here man, whereas it's mostly a guy's property and future that brings status to a woman. But as women have more rewarding careers, that could change and probably has.
Unsuccessful guys tend to hope that love will be this other pure realm where their lack of success isn't important, and an escape from this crass world, and lots of movies, etc., tell everyone that that's true, but really the world of love and marriage tends to be continuous with everything else.
I for one welcome our new tivo-reset-overlord.
SCMT, have you considered spending a year asking out every woman who seems friendly?
And then he could write a book, The Year of Restraining Orders.
Yeah, that's the as-yet-unsolved skeeve problem for the hypothetical male counterpart of this book.
And then he could write a book, The Year of Restraining Orders.
LOL!
I reset the Tivo a while back and didn't tell you about it.
No wonder the blog's been sucking lately. Ogged got wiggly with his drummer.
117, 123, etc.:
As (I think) the person who initially brought up the "guy, by asking a woman out, commits himself to showing any further level of interest that she is open to" idea, I want to reiterate that I don't think that this should be an obligation, or that a guy who has no further interest at the end of a date is doing anything wrong by backing off -- just that this expectation is out there, and might make our hypothetical serial dater look like a cad to readers of his hypothetical memoir.
166, 167, 168: Oh, come on. Guys really overestimate the amount of trouble you can get into by asking someone out, pleasantly, and taking no for an answer. (Correct answer: None.)
I only meant that no kiss on the second date would clearly telegraph non-interest, and would not read as chivalrous, not that my feelings would be crushed.
Soon, Ogged, you too will be bad at math.
Bphd,
I've heard guys say it (I'd date an ugly girl if it wasn't for the peer pressure) more than once.
Those guys are just telling you what you want to hear. They are being PC to you and giving a rationale for what you and others think is their boorish behaviour.
It's not much different from women saying they don't really care about their man's money or status and then viola, more often than not ending up with a man who is tall and slighlty higher than them on the money ladder.
We say what we are expected to say but we usually do what we want to do and rationalize about it.
Guys really overestimate the amount of trouble you can get into by asking someone out, pleasantly, and taking no for an answer.
Really? See, my instinct has always been to think that people (um, women) would often be, like, "As if!" Or "If jerks like you keep asking for my number, I'm going to stop smiling on the street." That is why this book needs to be written. So guys can gain this valuable knowledge.
And I think that, if it were well presented that this was a way of getting past your own hangups and unsuccessful dating strategies (as it was for Headley), the author could avoid giving off the impression that he's a cad. Headley (apparently) didn't come across as always leading men on, and I think in our culture the harmful stereotype is much more that women lead men on than vice versa. At least, lead them on to some place short of sex (post-sex, I think it may be "stringing them along," or "dragging my heart around").
Oh, come on. Guys really overestimate the amount of trouble you can get into by asking someone out, pleasantly, and taking no for an answer. (Correct answer: None.)
I agree, Lizardbreath, but I was also one of those guys (afraid to ask a girl out) years ago. It was not a rational fear but it was a very real fear. It took a certain amount of maturing on my part to get over it. My problem was that I was making way too much of a big deal out of asking someone out. Movies and such had told me that you ask the right person out, you fall in love, and you marry for life, which is a pretty big and unrealistic expectation to carry into a first date.
My sister and Mother explicitly told me to date more girls as friends but I recall responding "If I want to go out with friends I'll go out with my guy friends."
I'm surprised that guys aren't strategizing how to get Year of Yes into the hands of as many women as possible so that they'll be primed for their invitations.
Matt,
I've often been tempted to write such a book. So far my efforts to impart my 'great' dating wisdom to my teen sons had been met with a stone wall.
My book would be essentially the following:
1. If 'being yourself' isn't working then change.
2. How to tell before saying a word if there is interest.
3. What a date is, and what a date is not.
4. Practice and repetition make it easier.
5. Traps and pitfalls.
A long time ago I read "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and I think my book would mostly be a modernization of that classic. Some things never really change much.
See, my instinct has always been to think that people (um, women) would often be, like, "As if!" Or "If jerks like you keep asking for my number, I'm going to stop smiling on the street."
Well, okay, both of these responses are well within the realm of possibility (harsh, but possible) -- neither, on the other hand, has anything to do with restraining orders. Rejection is certainly possible, and if you're asking women out indiscriminately, likely -- but being rejected, unpleasant though it is, doesn't count as getting into trouble.
neither, on the other hand, has anything to do with restraining orders
I believe that fell under the heading of comedically licensed hyperbole.
Tripp, "date more girls as friends" isn't exactly what I was thinking of. Never really had the problem of thinking that women would be put off if I tried to make Just Friends with them. I'm thinking, if you're at a bus stop or wherever, and you pass some innocuous remark about the weather to the woman next to you, and she responds pleasantly, and there's one more conversational turn, and the bus is coming, can you actually ask her for her number? Even if you don't see Year of Yes poking out of her backpack?
but being rejected, unpleasant though it is, doesn't count as getting into trouble.
I totally agree. This will sound way trite and artificial but has anyone else noticed how James Bond responds to rejection?
He says "Another time perhaps" and walks away.
Matt,
can you actually ask her for her number?
I can.
Can you? What is stopping you? The last time I checked politely asking for a number is not a crime.
I guess 177 answers the question. But there's also the problem of "what if you get that kind of rejection and then run into her in a social situation, wouldn't that be awkward?" Also, if being asked out by a random would really annoy a lot of women, one would not wish to cause needless pain. Still, this does not seem so insuperable; I think some guy needs to try this.
Before anyone gets personal I should link this.
This will sound way trite and artificial but has anyone else noticed how James Bond responds to rejection?
He says "Another time perhaps" and walks away.
A lot of us would've been a lot happier if we could have been so nonchalant about rejection (and thus more willing to risk it).
their man's money or status and then viola
I hate it when money and status turn into stringed instruments.
Couldn't resist.
Weiner, whether she's going to think you're creepy or not is going to depend on the conversation (asking for a number after only saying how's the weather? a bit shady. asking for a number/low-key coffee date after an animated five-minute chat? maybe fun!) and well, whether you give off creepy vibes.
In either case, the worst thing that happens is that she says no and gives you a dirty look. She's unlikely to be so frightened or wary that she never smiles at men again (!)
Well, James Bond, besides not being real, has lots of confidence for a reason. Rejection is worse for a guy without confidence. It's a big vicious circle, obviously, but advice like "Be confident!" and "Don't worry about rejection!" work best for people who don't need that advice.
Matt,
By your description of the meeting I surmised that you had already had enough social interaction with this woman to know if you were being an unwanted intrusion or not. I would certainly never advocate asking random women on the street for their numbers right out of the blue! That would be incredibly rude and almost criminal.
So what if you asked and she said "no thanks" and you later met her in a social setting? I don't think that would be terribly akward. She might remember you favorably. The worst that could happen, I suppose, is if she told the group you had 'accosted her' at a bus stop, but that would be a lie.
For instance our own John Emerson.
John,
Very good points. Please see chapters two and four in my book.
178: Well, sure, but it's a category of hyperbole that comes up a fair amount: in discussions of sexual harassment; of rape, and what consent means... I really do get the sense, from conversations about sexual issues with men, that lots of you guys have a conception that making a sexual or romantic approach is an offense somehow -- like it's on a continuum with rape or harassment, but much much milder. This is, to put it mildly, nuts, and so I tend to comment on even jokes made on the basis of that assumption.
179: Sure you can. Don't take it personally if she says no, but there's not a thing wrong with that. (Something I've seen suggested is, in such circumstances, pre-emptively handing her your number and saying that you'd like to see her again, and she should call you.)
Cala,
Couldn't resist.
I know. Offering women the chance to be witty is one of my charms.
I've got others . . .
I would certainly never advocate asking random women on the street for their numbers right out of the blue!
But the book project would involve something pretty close to that. Well, not right out of the blue, but at least talking to women on the street or wherever much more than you ordinarily do. And probably erring on the side of asking for her number. But obviously judgment is called for (as it was in Headley's case) -- if she's going for the pepper spray say "It was nice talking to you" and walk away.
(Not responsible for advice taken.)
Something I've seen suggested is, in such circumstances, pre-emptively handing her your number and saying that you'd like to see her again, and she should call you.
I was under the impression that that was a somewhat fuckwitted move. In fact, I can tell you exactly where I get that impression: Sushi for Beginners, by Marian Keyes. To say anything more would constitute spoilage, I guess.
190:
Lizardbreath,
Very very good point. I think many younger men feel that there is something wrong in sexually desiring a woman. They think of bad examples such as rape, harrassment, 'only wanting me for my body,' or 'bad before marriage.'
Over the years I have gotten more comfortable with my own sexuality to where I now no longer deny it. I don't run around bragging about it and I am mindful of other's feelings but I am also true to myself and my desires and preferences.
Opinions vary on whether this works (you may be seen as a friend), but—if there's a chance that you'll see her again in some social context, e.g. synagogue softball—asking for or giving an e-mail can be a little bit less threatening.
ugh-- exchanging e-mail addresses
Nowadays all the kids are exchanging AIM screen names.
A couple of times I made a project of writing notes to cute guys I saw on the subway, or in one case, a guy who was my waiter in a restaurant, with my name and phone number and something about what struck me about them. In the subway cases, I didn't speak to them before I gave them my note, but then I had to explain what I was doing. The very first time I ever did it, I got a call. The guy had been handsome and well-dressed and speaking Spanish to a couple of his friends, so on a very silly whim, right before I got off the train, I wrote him I note that said "Eres muy guapo" (you are very handsome) with my name and number. (I was later pissed at myself that I hadn't written something in a more natural Latin American idiom, like "Te ves bien" or "Luces bien.") Anyway, he called the next day, we went out, and it was one of the best first dates I have ever been on in my life. We were quickly and palpably attracted to each other; we had a surprising overlap in interests despite being of different race and class; we chatted about Latin American lit, his songwriting, psychology and social work, easily and naturally switching between languages, I got multiple nice guy (not "nice guy") cues from him--all in all. There was only one catch. He had a girlfriend. And before you all get skeeved, it wasn't like that. He disclosed it immediately; he wasn't intending to cheat on her; he was in the process of psychologically adjusting to the fact that he was a new and unplanned father and a relationship he had intended to be casual was becoming the focus of his life, and he couldn't quit the renumerative job he hated because of the baby, etc., and he just wanted a little break to chat with the random white girl on the train who'd asked him out. The other two times I did it I didn't get a response (the waiter may have been gay, in fact).
Remunerative! (I am deadly serious.)
Thanks Ben. That wasn't mistyping; I genuinely didn't know.
At least she is an honest homewrecker.
That wasn't mistyping; I genuinely didn't know.
I used to think it was "renumerative" and "renumeration," too. Since it involves money, the "numeration" part seems right. The correct words look/sound weird. According to webster.com, "remuneration," like "munificent," derives from the Latin "munus" (gift).
he was in the process of psychologically adjusting to the fact that he was a new and unplanned father and a relationship he had intended to be casual was becoming the focus of his life, and he couldn't quit the renumerative job he hated because of the baby, etc.,
Jeebus. I have to admit that stories like this make me sympathetic to the male right groups (or whatever the people who want to be able to deny financial responsibility for a kid prior to its birth are called). I feel bad about that sympathy, but I definitely feel it.
Tia, never, never admit anything. This is the real world -- the world of Ogged. Anything you say will be held against you. It's a common mistype.
To 194: I'm still having trouble getting over that, particularly living in a big city and seeing attractive women on the train, etc. The net effect is probably to make me appear creepier than I would appear if I were to approach this in some yet-to-be-determined "normal" way.
I blame the damn feminists!
Well, not approaching attractive women on the train out of fear of rejection is time-honored, reasonable, and non-creepy. So you can keep on doing exactly what you're doing now, so long as you remember that if you wanted to strike up a conversation and ask for a phone number, you wouldn't be doing anything wrong.
To be fair to the guys, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't thinking bad things about you. There are women who seem to regard the fact that men ask women out at all, even in a non-creepy way, as an imposition. For example, some older women I knew were het up that Raj asked Robin the secretary out after he was kicked off of The Apprentice: 2. However, they are ridiculous. If you are nice and chill and non-creepy, take the hint when women try to send leave me alone vibes, you're not doing anything wrong.
True -- I shouldn't put the responsibility for the misconception all on the guys, there are women who are offended simply by being approached. But (a) as Tia says, assuming that you're behaving in a reasonable and polite fashion, and cheerfully take 'no' for an an answer, you aren't doing anything wrong, and (b) women who are offended by a polite approach are, while not non-existent, rarer than most men seem to think they are.
What if it's a woman who works at the same place I do, and who I've determined also lives in my same neighborhood, and with whom I've frequently shared an elevator? In a situation like that, is it more or less creepy to studiously avoid social interaction with her?
Maybe my kick-ass beard makes me look like an arrogant grad student who can't be bothered to talk to the commoners, though, and she's actually the one who's intimidated to talk to me!
What if it's a woman in a seminar I'm taking and another I'm auditing?
Maybe my decidedly not kick-ass beard plays a role here.
Anita Hill started this whole thing. It's all about looks, you know? Because if Clarence Thomas looked like Denzel Washington, this would have never happened! She'd be all, "Oh, stop it, Clarence, you nasty! Your fine self!" So, what's sexual harrassment, when an ugly man wants some? "Oh, he ugly! Call the police! Call the authority!"
210 and 211: You should talk to her even if you don't want to date her because it's friendly.
There was this hot Lutheran woman in one of my seminars -- kind of disaffected and unsure she wanted to go into ministry, which is so hot -- but I never talked to her until the end of the semester, when she revealed that she had really enjoyed having me in class and liked what I had to say and... then the next semester she was off to do her internship in North Dakota or something. Plus, the Lutheran seminary is just north of 55th St., and as everyone in Hyde Park knows, anywhere north of 55th is "the ghetto" and you'll be shot on sight, so it probably wouldn't have worked.
Chris Rock gets it: it's an imposition, unless she thinks you're hot.
Did anyone watch the Boondocks when MLK came back?
Don't you mean "south of 60th"? The bigass liquor store is on 53rd.
I pity the fools who are too timorous to go to Rajun Cajun, Harold's Chicken Shack, Ribs 'n' Bibs, Hyde Park Produce, or any of the places that are reportedly pretty good but which I never went to for some reason.
What am I, Dear Abby? You're allowed to say "Hi," to chat, and to ask if she'd like to get some coffee or go see a movie or something. If it works out, great, you've made a friend or possible romantic prospect; on the other hand, if you get the sense that she doesn't want to chat, you drop back to a smile and a nod. (Which, you know, Clarence Thomas's error. If not everyone in the workplace is into the Long Dong Silver conversation, that's when you're responsible for dropping the subject.)
as Tia says, assuming that you're behaving in a reasonable and polite fashion, and cheerfully take 'no' for an an answer, you aren't doing anything wrong,
Sort of. This kind of varies with the woman's generally perceived attractiveness. There are women who get hit on relentlessly, by nice guys asking only once, because they have a certain look (really attractive and approachable). I know a female secretary who had to be moved to an interior office because too many of the men were coming by to chat her up. She couldn't get any work done. (FTR: I was not one of the guys. Well, not after her first day.)
LB, you'd be a great advice columnist. Maybe you should get that going as a side gig.
I'm actually already seeing someone, who incidentally lives right behind the plaza where the liquor store is. I'd say that the "safe zone" is considered to be between 60th and 51st, with some level of doubt the further north you go. Some guy got shot a few weeks ago at 54th and Woodlawn.
Rajun Cajun is quite good. There's lots of stuff on 53rd, and on 51st. I used to live on 54th & Ingleside, and only got shot twice, and in non-lethal areas.
Plus, all the fancy high rises are on 51st. I call shenanigans.
Is Mr. G's still there on 53d? That was an oddly good little grocery store -- looked shabby, but every time I needed something arcane, it was in stock.
Rajun Cajun is a ridiculous concept, even though it is quite good -- Indian food and Southern food, under one roof? I like the "Asian restaurant corridor" on 55th, too -- like two Korean restaurants and three Thai places.
I've never had the southern dishes, but I like that they're available.
I once sat in that korean restaurant with my girlfriend for roughly an hour without being served. It was the kim jong-il t-shirts.
Mr. G's has been pressed into the service of the Co-op.
There's also the Japanese place on 55th.
The great thing about Rajun Cajun is that although it produces southern food from two continents, none of it is Cajun.
I thought the fried chicken might be laced with "cajun spices" a la popeye's. Has anyone ever rented one of the bollywood offerings on display?
Indian food and Southern food, under one roof?
When I was an undergrad, there was a restaurant in Chapel Hill called Cisco, Charlie, and Chang's, that served Mexican, Cajun, and Chinese.
The fried chicken is good, especially with some of that spicy cauliflower stuff.
Yeah, I don't even recognize the name (Mr. G's).
What's that Mexican place that's on the lower level of the Harper plaza? I was told that that's the best Mexican in Hyde Park, and if that's so, then they frankly need some new Mexican restaurants.
Btw, my market research reveals that Mexican is the fastest-growing fast food format. If you're part of a private equity group, I'd recommend buying up some chain. Perhaps "Pepe's (Wonderful Mexican Food)."
Mr. G's is the coop location in the plaza with Kimball Liquors, the new Nile, Harold's, etc.
Not only does HP need better Mexican restaurants, they need a better way to get to Pilsen. Taking the 55 to Ashland, then the Ashland bus north, is not necessarily a good way, unless you luck out on the bus.
I'm pretty sure it's the only mexican place in hyde park, or the only place you can get a burrito. Some sort of female name with an L. Not Leona's. I have failed.
Maravilla's! Come to think, that's probably not anybody's name.
No, there's also that shitty Pepe's place, of which the late F. Winston Codpiece III did a review at my site.
Ben, You could just take the Jeffery Local to the Green Line, then switch to the Blue Line at Clark and Lake.
Any place that requires a bus ride is not accessible by public transportation.
In that case, Hyde Park is not accessible by public transportation.
What's wrong with the bus? Irrational fear of frottage, or you just don't like dealing with the plebs?
I'm with Ogged. I'm a huge fan of public transit but in the six years I've lived in NYC/DC, I've never taken the bus. Subways are more reassuring – there's a track so obviously you're at the right place. One has to come along sooner or later. Buses seem more...I don't know...magical? Like if you stand on a corner and wish really hard, maybe one will come by. Or maybe one won't.
I'm not Dear Abby either, but I'm gonna speak up again.
First - read Chapter two of my book! There are ways to tell before you speak, and if you get the "do not bother' vibe then DON'T BOTHER them. Pay attention to the signals. Most women who don't want to be approached (because they are married or HOT or who knows the reason) are able to make that VERY clear before you even speak, so honor their request.
Second, is it okay to ask out someone who is dating? Yes! I've asked many women if they were dating someone else when their (future) husband asked them out and they've said "yes." If they are dating a friend or family member - no good, otherwise okay. Obviously married people are verboten.
Third - Dating someone from work - the plus is that there is plenty of time to get the vibe and check the signals. The big minus is that if things go wrong they can go VERY wrong. Personally I never did it.
So do you just walk across Central Park every single time, Becks?
Dating someone from work
Done it, wouldn't recommend it.
If they are dating a friend or family member
Don't ask out women who date members of their own family. Check.
If they are dating... family member
I would say that anyone whose dating a family member is someone you probably don't want to get involved with. ("So, Jocasta... do people call you Jo? Anyway, I was wondering what you were doing Friday...")
There are ways to tell before you speak, and if you get the "do not bother' vibe then DON'T BOTHER them. Pay attention to the signals. Most women who don't want to be approached (because they are married or HOT or who knows the reason) are able to make that VERY clear before you even speak, so honor their request.
Eh... it's not that you're wrong, but chatting someone up who doesn't want to be talked to isn't a major offense, and I don't think the "If you can't confidently read people's non-verbal signals before speaking to them, you don't deserve to make contact with new people," approach is productive for people who aren't already confident. Yes, you shouldn't try to socialize with someone who is hiding behind furniture to get away from you, but if you're uncertain, you're allowed to say "Hi."
Cisco, Charlie, and Chang's, that served Mexican, Cajun, and Chinese
Now, it just sells routers.
243 - Yep. But I live downtown, so usually when I'm going uptown I'm only planning on going to one side of the park or the other.
f they are dating a... family member
Isn't this illegal in most states?
The corolloary to 245 and 246 is, if their datee isn't a friend of theirs by now, you probably don't want to get involved with them -- love-hate relationships aren't as much fun as they sound.
Stealing a friend's s.o.? Not a good idea. It's bound to lose you more than just that friend.
243 -- When I lived near Columbia, before I figured out how to use the bus, one time I took the 1 train down to 42nd, the Shuttle to Grand Central, and the 6 train up to my destination (forgetting where now but I think it was probably Hunter College).
Anyway, aren't cousins officially OK now?
Most women who don't want to be approached
I've found this strategy to be an excellent barometer for judging which women don't want any further approaches. They generally tell you right away.
I think they generally were historically -- the "Don't marry your cousins" rule was turn-of-the-century eugenics rather than longstanding incest taboo, if I recall correctly. People in 19th C English novels are always marrying cousins.
but chatting someone up who doesn't want to be talked to isn't a major offense
Seriously. You're all good boys who took the anti-date-rape education to heart and worry about being an insensitive cad, and that's good but yeesh.
This discussion suggests that the frame for the male Year of Yes should not be 'try to date girls you wouldn't normally take a chance on' but 'try to stop making excuses and good lord stop being a nervous nellie for five minutes and say hi.'
good lord stop being a nervous nellie
Well, I hesitate to put it like that, because I was certainly a coward in my dating days, and I hate to bad-mouth anyone simply for being as chicken as I was, but yes.
If they are dating... family member
Daddy says I'm the best kisser in town!
But I'm pretty sure cousins are legal in at least some states.
This discussion suggests that the frame for the male Year of Yes should not be 'try to date girls you wouldn't normally take a chance on' but 'try to stop making excuses and good lord stop being a nervous nellie for five minutes and say hi.'
But only interesting if our subject chat up and ask out everyone who's friendly, within some constraints.
(I know I barred unintentional revelation, but I think I can make it clear that this person will not be me.)
Well, Kotsko just said he was seeing someone, we don't know what's up with ogged, but the TiVo's been reset.... Tim?
the TiVo's been reset
He's been awfully cagey about whether the "resetting of the TiVo" was literal or metaphorical.
So it's not "reset your Tivo in the brook closet every afternoon"?
You just won't let it die, will you Apo?
258: I have been a complete wimp, too, but at least I'm not under the delusion that the men are so fragile that asking them out would be perceived as! a! threat!
Are women so cruel when turning men down that this is a legit concern? (Not having been a man...) Polite o-demurrals are usually how it works, no?
Anyway, aren't cousins officially OK now?
I believe you can marry your second cousin in any state, and your first cousin in some. Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt were fifth cousins, IIRC. Johns Hopkins and his first cousin were hot for each other, but her parents wouldn't allow them to marry. Hopkins, following the principle later articulated by the Bee Gees ("if I can't have you, I don't want nobody, baby,") never married, made a fortune in business, and in his will left much of it to found the university now named after him.
Are women so cruel when turning men down that this is a legit concern?
Absolutely. If a man asks you out, he is thereby putting his very soul into your hands, to nurture or crush at your whim. You should be very hesitant to reject him; men have been known spontaneously to expire, at less. This is why we are so wary about asking you out -- we are hesitant about placing such huge responsibility on your shoulders. Bear it gently!
My friend who reset his Tivo in the broom closet every afternoon at work eventually got fired. As I recall, one of broom-closet ladies found out she wasn't the only one.
Fifth cousins?! I'd hope that marrying fifth cousins has always been okay. I couldn't even begin to tell you who my fifth cousins are. I lose track after second cousins.
I'll be sure to procure a horcrux for storing their delicate souls.
My now-wife asked me out, I accepted, and we've been married for 16 years. I was utterly chickenshit about asking people out, but she had no such compunctions. (To put it crudely, I was the pussy even though she was the one who had a pussy.)
we are hesitant about placing such huge responsibility on your shoulders. Bear it gently!
Suddenly, I feel like Spider-Man™.
Are women so cruel when turning men down that this is a legit concern?
Can be, sure. I've avoided the scenario by only ever dating people I'd known already, but I can provide references from acquaintances who have had women laugh in their faces, then walk away.
Suddenly, I feel like Spider-Man™.
Happy to be of service.
266, 268, 275:
Now, I can totally sympathize with not wanting to ask people out because they might reject you meanly (or at all). Rejection sucks, and people being mean to you suck.
I just wanted to argue against the notion that when you ask someone out, chat them up, whatever, you are genuinely doing something offensive.
A real bad dating pattern I fell into was this. After breaking up I vowed not to date again. I then eventually became totally infatuated with someone before even speaking to her to the point that I absolutely HAD to ask her out. If she said "yes" then I was at the "I so LOVE you" stage and she was at the "so what is your major?" stage which is no way to start a relationship, so we'd break up, starting the pattern all over again.
My solution was to ask women out before getting to the infatuation stage and take things from there, but it took some maturing for me to start doing that.
272 is definitely putting it crudely.
I just wanted to argue against the notion that when you ask someone out, chat them up, whatever, you are genuinely doing something offensive.
Okay, but from the man's perspective it doesn't really matter if it's actually offensive or if it's just something that she (incorrectly) perceives to be offensive -- the risk is still there (though perhaps exaggerated) and it's scary.
(To put it crudely, I was the pussy even though she was the one who had a pussy.)
Ho, ho! This doesn't work because pussy-having hadn't previously been mentioned or established. Your jokes have to come from somewhere!
281: Very uncool to call Frederick and his wife hoes, Ben.
What, jokes can't arise via proctological extraction?
(Yes. Crude.)
What, jokes can't arise via proctological extraction?
They can, Cala, but it takes a considerable amount of practice.
(I was thinking, 'apo probably has a link for this.')
Wow, thanks for the link, apo! I have not saved up nearly enough for a RealDoll(tm) yet, but the Kagaku product is just about within my budget!
the risk is still there (though perhaps exaggerated) and it's scary.
I'm serious here -- risk of what? If the risk is that she'll hurt your feelings, I sympathize, but it doesn't mean you've done anything wrong. What else is a woman who didn't want you to ask her out going to do to you that scares you?
Clicked on the link in 284, realized the context of 284, and closed the link before it loaded. Was I right? Narrowly avoided the dooce?
I did the same, but I think it was non-pornographic medical equipment, which oughtn't to have set off any alarms.
If the risk is that she'll hurt your feelings, I sympathize, but it doesn't mean you've done anything wrong.
It is, but my point is that it doesn't matter if you've done anything wrong -- it's just not a pleasant experience (I assume -- I should note that this has not actually happened to me), and fear of it is what makes (many) men afraid of asking women out.
Fair enough. I completely sympathize with fear of rejection.
Well, I sympathize, because I've been known to studiously avoid eye contact with men who appear to be trying to make eye contact with me, not because I wouldn't be interested in them, but because in case they're just accidentally making eye contact with me, I don't want them to think I'm interested in them, since they might be thinking "She thinks she has a chance with me?" Also, I've spent a lot of time single. When I suspended this behavior upon arrival in Spain, since it was easy to play confident since it had the fairy-quality of being in another country and another language, I had a boyfriend within a week.
Well, I sympathize, because I've been known to studiously avoid eye contact with men who appear to be trying to make eye contact with me, not because I wouldn't be interested in them, but because in case they're just accidentally making eye contact with me, I don't want them to think I'm interested in them, since they might be thinking "She thinks she has a chance with me?"
I love the Internet. How else would I know that there were other people as crazy as I am? (And yes, I have done precisely this.)
What have cats to do with it?
That too. She had three cats and I had one dog.
Apostropher, I never cease to be amazed by the links you come up with (hence Ogged's expectation, before meeting you, that you'd "have the entire Internet in [your] back pocket").
Well, I sympathize, because I've been known to studiously avoid eye contact with men who appear to be trying to make eye contact with me, not because I wouldn't be interested in them, but because in case they're just accidentally making eye contact with me, I don't want them to think I'm interested in them, since they might be thinking "She thinks she has a chance with me?"
No doubt many of them are actually thinking, "She's looking away from me. Obviously she thinks I suck." Sad.
The answer, obviously, is to cruise chicks at the School for the Blind.
Yeesh, I thought we'd been over this. It's not fear of rejection, but fear of rudeness, or making the world slightly more unpleasant for the person you're asking. (If you're afraid of rejection, get over it.) This fear exists because, no matter how polite I might be, I'm aware that if every guy felt little compunction about asking women out, it really would be unpleasant for women.
I once picked up a girl in a sewer/storm drain in Vienna. Well, it's not exactly clear who did the picking up: we were on a walking tour going by places shown in The Third Man - hence the sewer - and she was the one who suggested we get coffee and I suggested we could see the movie (oddly enough, she went on the tour without having seen it) since it was playing that day. But it turned out that she was already going to catch the overnight train to Berlin so we ended up getting something to eat and walking around the city until she realized that on the 24 hour clock 20 = 8 and the train she thought would be leaving at 10 was actually leaving in less than an hour. We exchanged e-mail addresses and then she rushed off to catch her train. So maybe that can't be considered picking someone up.
Richard Linklater totally ripped you off.
I'm aware that if every guy felt little compunction about asking women out, it really would be unpleasant for women.
No, or at least I disagree. Assuming we're maintaining basic civility, being asked out by someone you're uninterested in isn't a particularly unpleasant experience. Awkward, sure, but modestly flattering, which nets out to a wash.
Some women might like it, some don't but you can say the same about chitchat about the weather -- there's nothing special about asking someone out that makes it an offense.
I never cease to be amazed by the links
You should see the ones I decide are inappropriate.
being asked out by someone you're uninterested in isn't a particularly unpleasant experience.
I kinda disagree with you here, LB--for once. If some random, nice-seeming person asked me out, and for whatever reason I turned him down, I'd feel guilty and slightly mean.
I have gone out on dates with randoms (see: the earlier-mentioned No-Holds Barred fighter), but never without first having a conversation for ten minutes or so. Initiating a conversation != Asking out.
I see what you're saying, ogged, and I know the feeling, but I'm not so sure it's really a problem (for the reasons LB gave). I still suspect that fear of rejection is a more common reason for men to avoid asking women out. You may not be afraid of rejection, and it may not be a justified response (in fact it probably isn't), but I think it's widespread nonetheless.
I have found it pretty uncomfortable to be asked out by people when I wasn't expecting it at all. Especially if I have to work with them. You're aware of him seeing you in a different way. You may feel the imposition of having to be direct and bordering on rude. I say, wait for a signal.
If some random, nice-seeming person asked me out, and for whatever reason I turned him down, I'd feel guilty and slightly mean.
Hrm. You're clearly just too nice. (And I do know how you feel; I did say it would be awkward, but wouldn't the awkwardness net out with the implied flattery so that it was neither a particularly positive nor negative experience?)
never without first having a conversation for ten minutes or so. Initiating a conversation != Asking out.
Well, yes. I have to say I can't picture asking someone out without striking up a conversation first.
293: "I've been known to studiously avoid eye contact with men [...] not because I wouldn't be interested in them"
305: "I say, wait for a signal."
You see the problem.
"Fear of rejection" is slippery here. If I'm sizing up the situation and thinking that a girl won't go for me, it's ultimately then fear of rejection that's staying my game. If you're issuing eyes and a woman is not meeting them, it's only judicious to assume that she possibly just doesn't want to—everyone being as evident of everyone else as they evidently are.
More than once I've accidentally made eye contact with a woman and been met with a fleeting, momentary glance that felt accusatory. Like I'm being a creep for it. I guess that's okay when you're actually trying to make eyes, but it sucks to pay that penalty for a total accident.
That should have been:
I did say it would be awkward, but wouldn't the awkwardness net out with the implied flattery so that it was neither a particularly positive nor negative experience
Nope.
305: So clearly there are those who disagree with me about this.
Especially if I have to work with them.
And I would agree that there's a higher standard you have to meet before asking someone out if you have to deal with them on a day-to-day basis. If you're going to ask a co-worker out, you should have a very clear sense that they're interested. I've been thinking about strangers/minimal acquaintances -- someone you see in the coffee shop in the morning, someone from a class -- not people you're going to have to relate to on an ongoing basis.
the dead can't look away.
I hear Real Dolls are really easy, too.
300: It actually happened a couple of years after Before Sunrise came out, but a couple of years before I saw the movie.
When I suspended this behavior upon arrival in Spain, since it was easy to play confident since it had the fairy-quality of being in another country and another language, I had a boyfriend within a week.
Let me guess -- Fernando?
This fear exists because, no matter how polite I might be, I'm aware that if every guy felt little compunction about asking women out, it really would be unpleasant for women.
I agree with LB; I'm sure that every guy would be a little nuts because every guy probably includes more than a fair share of pushy assholes.
But I don't think it's unpleasant to have a nice 10-minute conversation with someone followed up by a phone number exchange; kind of flattering, even if awkward.
I'd like to see some statistics. I'd say most women try to signal interest with eye contact.
Well, as has been noted, as long as there's disagreement even among the women, guys are going to act with caution. I don't think we're just making up this concern, or reacting to too-well internalized date-rape seminars.
I can't picture asking someone out without striking up a conversation first.
Oh man, I can picture it just fine. That is the primary reason I got a bicycle when I was in France---so I'd be faster than them.
Here's a decent rule of thumb for asking out strangers: if she's still talking to you after ten minutes, go for it. (Before that, she might just be being polite.)
Vic/tor del Rio Ca/lvo. The one who wasn't smart enough for me. I liked him and we had a fun, companionate relationship, but when he couldn't get the sex puns I made in his language, it was an indication of a problem. (I once pointed to sperm and said "Este es el rio" [this is the river] then to his penis and "este es el calvo" [this is the bald man]. A pretty damn funny joke if I say so myself, all things considered. He looked at me uncomprehendingly. Maybe it was my accent.)
319 posted before I saw 316, with which I agree, obviously.
They take cousin marriages to the next level in Pakistan.
The results showed that 50.25% of marriages were between second cousins or closer. 37.07% were first cousin marriages, 11.72% were first cousin once removed or second cousin marriages, and .56% were second cousin unions.
Well, but what about someone you haven't noticed, or what if you're awkward with the non-verbal-signals-giving? The thing about saying that it's offensive to approach someone unless you've been given non-verbal permission, is that it means that only people who are confident in their ability to unambiguously send or interpret non-verbal signals are allowed to ask other people out or be asked out. Hell, most people I know can't communicate unambiguously even if you let them use words.
There is a study of what it's like to be on the receiving end of unrequited love, which explains the problem with the flattery theory. (Which also works for the receiving end of a more ordinary request for a date.) If you don't particularly like someone, you don't value his opinion, which tends to wipe out the potential flattery. So, usually, a net negative.
323 to 317.
On 316, 319 -- Yeah, I was trying to rule out that kind of thing by talking about civility.
318: There's a world of difference between being reluctant to approach someone out of a fear of rejection and thinking that approaching someone before overwhelming signals have been given is offensive. We're talking about a date for coffee here, not a grope.
Two things: 1) I'm a good signal-reader and 2) I have asked someone out just out of the blue. But I still find it all rather paralyzing because the problem with these fraught social interactions is precisely that there are so many voices in one's head contesting the signal-reading, and that's it's very hard not to see one's own confidence as pushiness. It's fine to say "read the signals," but in the real world, it's pretty hard to sort signals from second-guesses, which is why we're always asking for guidance.
324: So the ideal situation is to be breaking your friends' hearts. You value their opinion, right?
I'm not saying it's universally offensive. I'm saying you run the risk of bothering a particular person. Some people do find it irritating--even offensive. It can't be helped. Best, for your own sake, to have some inkling of a signal before the approach.
He looked at me uncomprehendingly. Maybe it was my accent.
When we visited Buenos Aires a few years ago, I had seen in one of our books that there was a shopping area called "Florida" just a few blocks from our hotel. I went out on the street and asked someone, "Donde esta Florida?" He didn't know what I was talking about. I asked someone else. Same reaction. It finally dawned on me that maybe they don't pronounce the word the way we do. I tried, "Donde esta Flow-ree-da?" She answered, "Ah! Flow-ree-da!" and pointed me in the right direction.
Certainly. I haven't meant to say that no one is bothered by it, just that by asking someone out who didn't want you to, while you may have momentarily annoyed her, you haven't done anything that's wrong in some greater sense.
all women should have little coasters, as are used at brazillian steak houses, with a red side and a green side. During a conversation, if the green side is showing, the woman desires that you ask for a date. If the red side is showing, she is sated and wants no date.
At the brazillian steak-house, if the green side is showing, you must accept the meat, even if you just forgot to turn it; otherwise you are toying with the gaucho's affections, and that is rude.
Although, for the book project, or the changing-your-dating-habits project, our subject might decide to accept and humorously catalogue some of these rejections. Still, this should be a modificaiton to bphd's original proposal in 19: Strike up conversations with every woman who seems possibly interested, ask out every one who's still talking after ten minutes.
So the ideal situation is to be breaking your friends' hearts.
Oy, there's a whole world of trouble there.
A female friend of mine put it this way: when a woman meets a man, she puts him on one of two ladders, the friend ladder or the possible relationship ladder. You can move up and down each ladder, but making the leap from one ladder to another is dangerous, and could lead to you falling into the abyss.
This abyss is what I fear.
Of course, this could all be bullshit, considering she started dating a guy who had been firmly entrenched on her "friend ladder" about 2 months after she told me this.
Re 330
I was looking for quay street street in Ireland once and had the same problem. It is pronounced "key" for some reason.
334: You know, there's a website about that...
Ditto looking for the Van Gogh museum in Holland. "Fon khokh."
How else would one pronounce 'quay'? Isn't it always 'key'?
What was annoying was when, in Spain, I got giggled at by my roommate for pronouncing "McDonalds" the American way. I mean, sheesh.
Re 338
I was extrapolating from all of the other words that start with "qu", such as "queen", and all other the other words that end with "ay", such as "May".
while you may have momentarily annoyed her, you haven't done anything that's wrong in some greater sense.
Unfortunately, this is pretty much true for much troublesome behavior that is short of inappropriate touching, etc. If, in several years of work, you hear one guy once refer to a woman as a "castrating bitch," you probably won't care. If you hear lots of men do it, fairly frequently, you will be deeply troubled.
331- You say that it's often neutral to positive, so go for it. I don't see it that way. I think it's either inspiringly good or deeply bad, so watch yourself.
I think the key here is for men to pay attention to a woman's eyes. Are they roaming a bit while you talk to her? You're probably done. Gazing wistfully into your eyes? You're in; ask away. Beyond obvious clues like that, are these observations: if you are in a group but are trying to ascertain whether a woman is interested: do her eyes linger for a bit on you after you make a contribution to the conversation, even though everyone else has moved on? Very good sign. Does she direct most comments at you although others are present? Also a good sign. Do you catch her glancing at you, then quickly looking away? That's a no-brainer. Of course, there are the times when a woman (or a man, ladies!) is trying very hard to feign non-interest, in a hard-to-get way, and on this, one has to go with one's gut. But generally, in my experience, "the eyes don't lie", as the saying goes.
For work: I try as hard as possible to be as unfriendly and unapproachable as I can be, because who needs friends at work? Work is for internet conversations.
So the general upshot is: read the signals. If you can't, learn.
346: definitely learn to read the signals, but as LB said, sometimes a woman just hasn't noticed you, but that doesn't mean she wouldn't welcome your approach. so do approach! but just keep reading the signals while you do so.
for some reason, i've had certain periods of my life when i've gotten hit on a lot. i can usually divide these experiences up into two categories:
a)GOOD. i felt like the person was trying to offer me something -- admiration, or a bit of kindness, or just a bit of pleasantness in the world, regardless of whether or not i said yes.
b) BAD. i felt to greater or lesser degrees like that woman on a bar stool in Swinger that the hero learns to see as a bunny rabbit who is his prey. i.e. the person wants something from me, or to do something TO me, but offers nothing pleasant in return. even if he is not actively nasty to me goddammit i have a busy day too and he is IN MY WAY.
so a lot of it is just being decent, and a second big part of it is making the move but then stepping back and giving the person space and not forcing anything or making it last too long.
i've had encounters that were actually pleasant and cheered my day up, and others that ruined my day (cursing at someone who says "no" to you, or staring contemptuously at them, or grabbing them is not a winner).
but yeah, just starting up a conversation is a neutral and perfectly nice thing to do!...
That ladder theory thing is probably largely true, but there are outliers. My Dad certainly had women friends he didn't want to sleep with. Most of them were a lot older than he was, like 30 years older. He had one really good friend from AA who was a Physics professor.
66: my sense that I won't date the auto shop guy is partly classist
Classist, but likely also a boundary issue (as people in the therapy game call it). Therapists are absolutely forbidden to date clients because you can't maintain a therapist/client relationship and a dating relationship at the same time. Similarly, lawyers are (I hope) always taught that dating a client is an inherent conflict of interest.
There's a power dynamic, too. Someone mentioned Anita Hill. My recollection is that Thomas was her boss at the time, which implies the old business of "I know you know I'm about to do your performance review, and your whole career and life is at stake, but wouldn't you like to have a coffee, or a beer, or maybe a quickie in the broom closet?" thing.
A customer/mechanic relation isn't exactly in the same league as therapist/client, and the power relation isn't quite the same as with boss/subordinate, but the same issues of boundaries and power are implicated.
66: (Btw, don't forget that I'm the woman who dated guys I met in internet chat rooms, sight unseen, for a summer. . . . In that case, of course, my selection criteria was "can write.")
I'd be shocked if that were the major criterion, as someone else pointed out (Maynard?). You were undoubtedly reading a lot of clues. With the auto shop guy there were the visual clues ('is that diamond stud earring too large, or too small? Didn't the whole Fu Manchu mustache thing go out of style? How could I consider being seen with someone who has a haircut like that?').
Online there are a multitude of cues. There's whether they speak too much of sports ('intellectual intercourse? Not tonight, dear, I'm having my football period'). There are references to places (knows that HP = UofC? good. Refers to Harper as the library? bad, wrong generation). There's fashion (doesn't know from pleated pants?? very bad).
To put it another way, Hemingway and Dickinson are both widely regarded as acceptable writers, but I don't think that means you'd have gone out with either. Even if you were feeling all post-Spike and so over the whole issue of dating the dead.
Woops, Margaux committed suicide in 1996, just like grandpa, so Mariel's the only one who's still alive.
You know, I can imagine a situation where a woman is signaling, yes, you can ask me out and the guy isn't as interested in her romantically as she is in him at that point but he would be if they were to go out, so he doesn't ask her and they don't go out, but if she had asked him he would have said yes and good things for both of them could have followed from that. (Hmm, that sentence reads a bit like Molly Bloom with erratic punctuation and no final yesses.)
So while I completely understand why women tend not to ask men out, the "women signal, men ask" norm has its flaws.
erratic punctuation s/b "erotic punctuation"
I can also imagine a situation like the one in 354. My take is that women should ask men out much more often than they do now. I think it would give both sexes a bit more perspective in discussions like this.
erratic punctuation s/b "erotic punctuation"
I agree 8==D
I chose "erratic" knowing that a comment like 355 was sure to follow.
Anyway, the foregoing discussion is of no utility whatsoever to those of us who can't even "strike up" conversations in the first place.
That said, I would love to scatter hot spurts of steel from my conversational rod by rubbing it against a woman's curvy knaps, thereby igniting the tinder of mutual interest.
That someone has committed suicide merely opens up a whole range of conversational gambits. "I've been thinking about suicide, myself. How'd it work out for you? Any tips?"
teofilo, were you around for this followed by this?
That someone has committed suicide merely opens up a whole range of conversational gambits. "I've been thinking about suicide, myself. How'd it work out for you? Any tips?"
Do you have some means of communicating with the dead that the rest of us don't know about?
No, just the standard ways, I think.
My take is that women should ask men out much more often than they do now. I think it would give both sexes a bit more perspective in discussions like this.
I don't think it makes much of a difference. The fact that you yourself have a crush on someone doesn't necessarily make you sympathetic to someone who has a crush on you. You don't measure it properly, somehow--there is often a distortion. You are filled with hope and rate your chances high with the person you like, you think of the person who likes you whose feelings you don't share as impossibly distant and even deluded.
So a woman who has been rejected by some guy she pursued wouldn't necessarily see someone pursuing her with greater clarity.
356, 365: Whether or not it would give people more perspective on the other gender, both sexes would get a lot more dates if more women asked men out.
A man I had broken up with used to follow me. Finally he persuaded me to go into a cafe and have a cup of tea with him.
"I know what a spectacle I am," he said. "I know if you did have any love left for me this would destroy it."
I said nothing.
He beat the spoon against the sugar bowl.
"What do you think of, when you're with me?"
I meant to say, "I don't know," but instead I said, "I think of how much I want to get away."
He reared up trembling and dropped the spoon on the floor.
"You're free of me," he said in a choking voice.
This is the scent both comic and horrible, stagy and real. He was in desperate need, as I am now, and I didn't pity him, and I'm not sorry I didn't.
--"Bardon Bus," sec. 10
Sweet, I can cross Alice Munro off the list of things I ought to read.
"scent" s/b "scene," dammit! I saw that and forgot to correct it.
And yet I think it shouldn't be such a problem, to have a man take every opening for a conversation and a date for a year. We're not advocating his making puppy-dog eyes and declaring his eternal love to the women he just met, although the guy in 26 kind of comes off that way. Use tact, if you have any, and maybe you'll annoy some women, but will it be that many? We'll never find out for sure until someone writes the book, and probably not even then.
You guys both suck beyond all possible imagining.
eb: That was before my time, although I have read that first thread.
ac: Sure, but what I mean is in semi-abstract discussions like this women and men would probably understand each other better if they both had had experiences of both asking and being asked. I'm sensing a gap in the present discussion.
Come on Matt, I'm down with your sensitive/horndoggy reading self, but the bit you quoted truly sucks--or, maybe some people really talk like that, but they should be shot, not written about.
I got asked to two sadie hawkins dances.
ogged: you've never said, "you're free of me" in a choking voice? I do that whenever I lose at monopoly.
I have to say, I like Alice Munro so much that I'm incapable of judging whether or not a particular passage is good taken out of context. That's not my favorite collection of hers, though it is the most desperate. (FWIW, the narrator of that story is desperate and obsessed herself, and the rest of the story is about that, not about how hott she is.)
is that why you don't pity me, and you're not sorry you don't?
I've also been known to tremble and drop a spoon on the floor, and say "you're free of me," in a choking voice, when my constipation is relieved.
I thought the story fragment accurately capture a true sentiment. In fact, hey, the very sentiment I was describing.
I'd like to see the Ogged/w-lfs-n/text short story.
367: Are you sure you're not confusing Munro with Nine Oh? 'Cause I can almost see that scene at the Peach Pit with Steve and Kelly.
You guys are all just jealous of my mad insight into the feminine mind.
382: I would also like to see that story. But it would likely destroy the universe.
Is English Alice Munro's native language? I'm not entirely joking with that question.
He reared up trembling and dropped the spoon on the floor.
Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Some of us don't lose at Monopoly.
Running hotels comes naturally to Iranians.
Is English Alice Munro's native language? I'm not entirely joking with that question.
She's Canadian. And her characters are children of a colder climate.
They are not, however, suffering from whatever ails Ogged in his most recent post.
ac.. you are either up unconscionably early.. or not in America?
Of all the Munro stories I can find online, I suppose I'd recommend this. Although this was accompanied by a much more salacious picture in the magazine. And while looking for those I found one I hadn't read, and that I get to read now (or when I have time), which all you people who suck don't get to do. Ha ha!
343: The fault in this analogy is that the person who's saying "castrating bitch" is not just annoying someone, but doing something objectively wrong. Asking someone out in a considerate, minimally invasive way is not doing something wrong; rather a woman who can't respond graciously but firmly is doing something wrong, and you could cross her off her list as someone you wouldn't want to date anyway.
I just finished the book myself, although I skipped most of the chapter about Dogboy, because I was impatient to get to the good guy.
She is writerly, but she has one tick which really annoys me: she uses "I" after a preposition or in some other context where an objective case would be more appropriate. Whay are people so afriad of "me"?
(I know that I'm just asking for some bad joke. Bring it on, people.)
Bring it on, people.
tick/tic, whay/why, afriad/afraid.
I guess that's okay when you're actually trying to make eyes, but it sucks to pay that penalty for a total accident.
Okay, yeah, I know, but this is what I meant when I said I had to mature a little before I could actually follow my own advice.
For me the realization was that if finding, attracting, and selecting a mate was easy humans would have died out long ago! Yes, there are challenges but that is what has made our species what it is, all the good and all the bad.
I sympathize but sympathy won't get you dates, and there is a VERY good reason for that.
Come on young bucks, the future of humanity is depending on you! BUCK UP!
397: Jeebus, them's some bad typos, but that wasn't what I was thinking of.
I dispute you on tic, though. I think tic means to check as in "Please tic box number one if you are over the age of 65."
Asking someone out in a considerate, minimally invasive way is not doing something wrong; rather a woman who can't respond graciously but firmly is doing something wrong, and you could cross her off her list as someone you wouldn't want to date anyway.
Really? It's morally wrong to like your personal space? And not want to be bothered when you're just trying to read your book or whatever? You should you be open to every advance just because someone else decides he's interested in you? That seems akin to the logic of the people who expect you to smile at them just because you're a woman.
Isn't it possible that there is nothing universally wrong with either, only case by case mismatches?
And yet I think it shouldn't be such a problem, to have a man take every opening for a conversation and a date for a year. We're not advocating his making puppy-dog eyes and declaring his eternal love to the women he just met, although the guy in 26 kind of comes off that way. Use tact, if you have any, and maybe you'll annoy some women, but will it be that many?
Well, yes. I get the impression that people who are talking about the burden of being asked out (a) are contemplating having to suffer under getting asked out a lot more than most people are likely to, and (b) are envisioning having to fend off people with intense crushes, rather than the occasional lighthearted social invitation. Obviously, if you're conveying to the object of your interest that you plan to go off and slit your wrists if he or she turns you down, you're being obnoxious, but a cheerful invitation to have coffee sometime needn't involve that level of angst.
ac,
It is a pretty big jump from "cannot respond graciously but firmly to a considerate and minimally invasive request" to "open to every advance."
I think you are over stating the case that was presented.
I dispute you on tic, though.
Dispute away. But you're wrong.
398 -- one thing I can't see ever feeling guilty about, is failing to contribute my set of genes to the next generation of humans...
399 -- you have got the uses of 'tic' and 'tick' swapped. 'tic' has no meaning as a verb.
ac, I've walked up to people reading and said, "Oh, I *love* that book," not because I was trying to pick them up, but because I, in fact, loved the book. If the person said, "yeah, it's great," and went back to reading, I'd walk away. If they acted actively pissy and mean that I'd bothered them, I'd think they were jerks. The world is full of people who engage you at a time you'd rather be alone for all kinds of reasons; it's encumbent upon all of us to be polite. Politeness includes reading polite "I don't want to be bothered signals."
Osner, I don't have access to my OED right now, but I'm pretty sure that I'm right. It's a British usage. In American English we would say "check."
Really? It's morally wrong to like your personal space? And not want to be bothered when you're just trying to read your book or whatever? You should you be open to every advance just because someone else decides he's interested in you?
Dude, if you're absorbed in a book or don't want to chat, you don't have to talk to people -- a cold stare and "I'm sorry, I'm reading," or whatever works just fine. Saying that it isn't offensive to make an advance is very different from saying that you have to be open to advances. (I wouldn't take "graciously" to be imposing any high bar for how warm and affirming one has to be when rebuffing an advance; all I'd say is that civility should be met with equal civility, but it can be as cold as you like.)
You can sell your genes to Japan for a good price, though, if they're faded and worn.
404
Thank goodness for that!
Okay, that was snarky. I think for many people the desire to contribute to the world comes later in life, and those contributions take many forms. I also think a lot of these drives happen below the concious level.
I'm pretty sure that I'm right
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm quite sure that you aren't.
For a perfect blog post on signals & people reading books, see this.
408, I'm looking at the OED and it lists 3 defs for 'tic', all are nouns. 'Tick' has a large number of verb defs including 3. a. "trans. To mark (a name, an item in a list, etc.) with a tick; to mark off with a tick, as noted, passed, or done with. Also fig.; colloq. to identify."
But I guess the problem is, to me, that there can be something inherently chancing and impolite about being asked out. You may not want to think of yourself in a sexual way all the time. And it can be an intrusion to have that imposed from without. That's part of why sexual harassment law exists--a woman in a workplace strives for some neutrality.
It's fine to say that you can't control how people treat you in the world, and I'm not saying these things should be regulated in any way, but it seems to me unreasonable to expect to like it when people intrude on you.
413 -- Absolutely, that's a great post, and the guy being mocked was too intrusive; once he's gotten a curt answer and a return to the book, that's his signal to stop trying. But there's nothing wrong with his initial question. After all, she might possibly have felt like chatting.
I'm not sure about the correct way of referencing OED definitions -- the above 3.a. is under tick, v.(1). Oh and, the definition of 'tic' you were using in 396 is def. 3 and 'tick' (tick, n.(5) 2.) is an alternate spelling of same.
408: apostropher, I do't think we're arguing, just discussing, and I don't think that you and I were discussing the meaning of "tic." Whether it's spelled tic or tick, it's definitely a transitive verb in British English.
415: Right, but asking someone out in the workplace actually doesn't constitute sexual harrassment. Asking repeatedly after you'd been told "no,' odes. Now, I'd agree that in a workplace it would be incumbent on the asker to exercise far greater than normal circumspection because of the potential for discomfort later. But there is a big difference between saying "you have to like this" and "you should be polite in response." One is about your internal state, which no one has the right to dictate, and another is about behavior. If someone else has been polite (and I'm totally aware that many, many men are not polite when asking women out), there's not reason not to respond politely.
Whether it's spelled tic or tick
But that was the nature of the disagreement -- see 397. I don't see Apostropher anywhere disputing that 'tick' can be used as a transitive verb; you were using 'tick' in 396 as a noun, but in a context where the correct spelling (regardless of your location) is 'tic'.
Ack, no, that's wrong -- please disregard. As I said in 417 your spelling is regarded by the OED as an acceptable alternate spelling.
ac, what are you doing after work?
418 posted before I saw and 414 and 417. Tic and tick are, it would seem, interchangeable.
416 – LB, I agree. I'm in the "go for it" camp. One thing that hasn't really been mentioned is the power of humor – find a way to make her laugh, and she'll be much less likely to see it as an imposition. The few times I've said yes to a stranger, it's been because they said something unusually witty that made me chuckle. It's much harder to say no with a smile on your face and helps ease "is this random guy a serial killer?" feelings (even though it's certainly faulty reasoning – I'm sure serial killers are good at charming their victims).
Even though it contradicts my position, I just had to link to that post, if only for "I am insouciant and mannerless! And persistent!"
See, I'm with ac here, and maybe this is why I have trouble striking up conversations: if I imagine that never-to-be world in which I would be in danger of being asked out when I went out in public, I also imagine that I would go out far less often than I do now. Saying "no," which is what most of us would do most of the time, is tremendously uncomfortable, and even just being chatted with can feel like an imposition.
415: We've probably reached an impasse here, and I suspect that it's because I'm a colder and less empathetic person than you are: unless I have to deal with someone on a repeated basis (co-workers, friends), or they're giving off signals that indicate that they're likely to be either dangerous or annoyingly timeconsuming, I can't imagine giving a damn whether someone I don't know is thinking of me sexually or whether I've hurt their feelings by rejecting them. Starting from there, the only cost to me in rebuffing a polite approach is the ~30 seconds it takes to do so, and I expect for most of us it wouldn't come up more than once or twice a day, if that often.
I suppose for someone kinder-hearted, or just more emotionally connected to people generally, the costs associated with such an approach are greater, and I hadn't really considered that.
Re: 'Tic[k]'. AFAIK, it is a transitive verb in British English exactly as B-girl describes, and it is generally spelled with a 'k' in that context as apo and JO contend. Everyone's right.
The chicken guy in Sue's post sounded almost as scary as being chased by a mime.
Tic and tick are, it would seem, interchangeable.
NO! I will not be oppressed by the fascist OED. Apostropher is the hero.
Well, I agree with Susan too. That guy was being a dweeb. She would have been totally justified in saying, "It actually does bother me that you're interrupting. I'm trying to read," or even, "Usually, when someone starts reading again immediately after an interruption, it's a polite sign that they didn't welcome the interruption in the first place. You ought to pay more attention to these cues in the future."
Clearly, ogged and ac need to meet up. Unfortunately, neither will ever be able to make the first move.
But you just made the first move for us, LB. ac, if you burn all your Munro, there might be a little somethin' here.
I didn't like that guy either, LB.
That wasn't the romantic "How we met" story?
That was the chicken story, obv.
Lizardbreath,
Yeah, I think we are at impasse. Still I will offer to ogged the advice that just because you wouldn't like it doesn't mean everyone will not like it. 'Putting yourself in the other person's shoes' is nice but it will not always give you the reality of the situation.
Also I am sure there are cultural differences and also we all differ in our amount of shyness, introvert/extrovert, and consideration over the feelings of others. There are no rights or wrongs in our personal characteristics but we can change them at least a bit if we want to.
And in my experience dating became much easier when I made some changes in myself. Complaining about the world or the unfairness of it all didn't seem to make me very attractive. Imagine that.
#172: Oh, please. I offer anecdotal evidence, you dismiss it because it doesn't fit your argument. We'll never get anywhere this way.
#178/190: Yeah, it worries me, this joke about restraining orders. Surely men know the difference between asking someone out and scaring them....?
Alice Munro can be uneven, but when she's on, she's fantastic.
LB is totally right about the asking people out thing. Say hello, offer innocuous observation or question, assess willingness to continue the conversation, proceed accordingly. If ensuing conversation seems mutually enjoyable, ask if she has a few minutes to go grab coffee, or would like to do so later in the day. If coffee is agreeable, offer phone # afterwards, along with suggestion of possible date. If coffee is declined regretfully ("oh, that would be nice, but I'm crazy busy today"), offer phone #. If coffee is declined without comment ("no, thanks"), you swung and missed without falling on your ass.
Alternate scenarios: at end of day, offer quick cheap dinner ("I'm really enjoying talking to you, but I'm starving--would you duck into this sandwich shop with me and have a quick bite to eat?"). And, etc.
I'd date Hemingway or Dickinson, actually. I doubt I'd get *involved* with either of them, but I'd surely enjoy dinner and conversation.
434: I was figuring that was you in the chicken suit.
I have a things for librarians, yet I give readers their space.
#354: I think the women here *do* ask men out--but we started talking about the scenario of a male version of the Yes book, and I think that to get a decent sample size, a man would have to make overtures, not just flirt and wait for women to ask him out.
Although, now that I think about it, that might be a great book, too. Though no one here would be capable of writing it, at least if all your self-assessments are accurate.
Asking out Dickinson might be a difficult proposition.
416: once he's gotten a curt answer and a return to the book, that's his signal to stop trying. But there's nothing wrong with his initial question.
I think the problem is that there are different standards for what counts as boundary violation here. I think, once guy has asked if he can sit there (perfectly functional question), he doesn't get another question, unless reader is signalling interest in conversation in some way. If reader is looking up from the book every so often, that's maybe an indication that she might be interested in talking. If reader has her nose in the book, then she probably wants to read the book, and has the right to be annoyed at having her concentration disrupted.
Fair enough, it is a judgment call. I'd give him one additional question past "Can I sit here?" because "Can I sit here?" doesn't unambiguously indicate "I'd like to chat."
436, bphd
#172: Oh, please. I offer anecdotal evidence, you dismiss it because it doesn't fit your argument. We'll never get anywhere this way.
Did I dismiss your anecdotal evidence? Perhaps, but not because it doesn't fit my argument. It clashes with my own anecdotal evidence.
Personally I'm attracted to good looks and it is not peer pressure that prevents me from asking out unacttractive women.
Second, admit it - aren't you cynical enough to doubt it when a guy says "Trust me, personally I'd really like to do what YOU and SOCIETY think is right but it is that darn peer pressure that stops me."
"It wasn't my idea, my friend's made me do it" is about the oldest excuse in the book, right up there with "It isn't mine I was holding it for a friend."
Okay I went to lunch and a meeting, and maybe this topic is completely dead. But I'm not sure you can always tell who is polite and who isn't; if you get hit on a lot, and it's usually unpleasant, people just trip your "oh no, not again" wire before you're fully focused on them. And I don't feel, in a sexist culture, the burden is on the woman to sort it out. Especially when the opposite problem--being too nice--can get you into all kinds of trouble.
#443, sure, of course I'm that cynical. But when some young man that I'm friendly with whines at me that he really likes this girl, but I dunno, my friends say she's not all that pretty, maybe I should keep looking, I tend to believe him.
the opposite problem--being too nice--can get you into all kinds of trouble
Just on this point, I dunno. After all, "Year of Yes" is all about being "too nice;" she even smooches the crazy homeless dude, so I'm curious what you mean by trouble.
Lots of stalking cases involve a woman who doesn't say no firmly enough in the beginning. At least, this is true according to Gavin de Becker, celebrity security advisor. (And my brother, former DC cop.)
On that, I'm pretty sure I know what ac means. "Trouble" may not be huge trouble, but there are certainly guys who will take minimal friendliness as a committment to continue socially engaging with them indefinitely: "You smiled when I said 'Hi.' Now, if you don't want to talk to me further, I'm entitled to call you a castrating bitch for leading me on."
This is something that habitually friendly women have more problems with than someone like me -- my reflexive response to attempted human interaction is to stare icily at the person until they begin to whimper and flee. But I've certainly heard stories.
Or I could let you speak for yourself.
And yes, milder forms of the same problem.
if I imagine that never-to-be world in which I would be in danger of being asked out when I went out in public, I also imagine that I would go out far less often than I do now.
In danger? I know what you mean, but I'm also operating under the assumption that you're a non-threatening, non-scary, non-pushy guy. You nicely asking out anyone for coffee probably isn't going to weigh as much on her decision to go out as the random catcalls are.
Look, if all the jackasses are the only ones brave enough to ask out women, of course we're going to be icy and stony; I imagine if all the nasty reactions were mixed in with nice inoffensive Unfogged men politely asking people out, the jackasses would feel more like outliers rather than the norm.
I may be icier than LB, though; I don't think I've ever been hit on in public. But I like to think they see my stack of metaphysics books and are intimidated by my huge brain power.
I may be icier than LB
I believe we have to rumble now.
It sounds more like a conflation of nice, meaning passive, and nice, meaning friendly. From the parts of YoY I've read so far, she's been "too nice" (friendly) as Ogged says but not "too nice" (passive). Trouble is more likely to occur with nice (2) than nice (1).
Or so I hear. Like LB, I am neither.
Umm, I've lost the question being answered here.
Once I was working in a law firm as a temp slave. It was right when I moved to DC, and I had approximately 0 friends in town, and I was pretty eager to meet people my own age. I noticed a girl who partly walked the same route I did to work, at roughly the same time, who looked like a friendly person who shared some of my social identifiers, and when I got the impression that she was somewhat aware of me (you know, one of those physical 6th sense things) I talked to her.
Awkward, really, but it worked out great—she was also new to town, in a satisfying relationship, but willing to go through the kabuki dance to make friends. That's one of my few experiences picking someone up out of the blue.
Does approaching women politely place a burden on them or therwise wrong them? Ogged, ac, and possibly others say yes; Cala, Becks, Tia, Bitch, I, and possibly others say no.
The other question on the table is something to do with incurring risks of stalking, but I'm not sure how to phrase it as a question. My sense, though, is that Becks has it right in 453: projecting passivity is risky, projecting friendliness less so.
Bphd,
#443, sure, of course I'm that cynical. But when some young man that I'm friendly with whines at me that he really likes this girl, but I dunno, my friends say she's not all that pretty, maybe I should keep looking, I tend to believe him.
Oh. Well. Young men - aaaggg. They have some maturing to do.
Don't let NO one - friends, parents, society, songs, feminists, even me tell you what you like.
Telling someone they should put pretty first is as bad as telling someone they should not put pretty first.
I've been too passive and been stalked because of it. That's why above I said firm, gracious 'no' should be a part of a woman's skill set. And while I can certainly sympathize with feeling like certain elements of social interaction demand painful amounts of energy, etc., because I feel that way all the time, I also frequently chalk it up to my problem, not the world's. I mean, if I could design the world to accomodate me, no social gathering would ever have more than 6 people present, I'd never be required to go to weddings, I wouldn't have had to talk to the ex-friend I ran into at a party last weekend...
I saw the question differently, LB, responding to Tia's 395. It's one thing to suggest it's best to respond to people in kind, and as LB says meet civility with civility, but I don't think you can condemn women having a more general policy, which would be, by its nature, more defensive.
My 395 only calls for meeting civility with civility.
Of course you shouldn't condemn anyone for having an automatic "no"; there's not a thing wrong with having a general policy of "No, I don't talk to strangers." I certainly agree with you on that, and I'd expect that everyone else would too.
You didn't merely suggest that it's a good thing, but that people who don't do that are in the wrong. But I'd say there are reasons (sheer numbers, physical safety concerns) for adopting a generally defensive posture, which doesn't deal with people so individually.
Here's how I've lived it: until about 23 or 24, my firm "no" was slightly defensive and panicky, but now that I've been out and about and around a bit, my firm "no" can be gracious and friendly and even subtle.
Women grow into this game, too.
Erm, I think the confusion here is between civility and warmth. You can be awfully cold -- cold enough to deter anyone deterrable -- without being uncivil (see Sue's post, linked by Becks above, for civil coldness); and of course if someone approaches you in an uncivil fashion, you're entitled to be as uncivil as you want in return.
Saying that it isn't wrong to approach people in a friendly fashion doesn't in any way imply that by approaching someone, you're entitled to any kind of positive response from them. You aren't entitled to a blessed thing.
Well, I do think it's wrong to be truly impolite, but it would nearly take active effort to rise to my bar of incivility. If you roll your eyes to say, "As if," that's uncivil. "I'm sorry; I'd rather not be disturbed right now," "No thank you, I wouldn't like to," etc., are all okay in my book, and suitably defensive.
If there was ambiguity, the definition of "gracious" I was operating with was number two.
I'd say there are reasons (sheer numbers, physical safety concerns)
I think I'm sort of with ac, here. We don't really care about small harms (which was the point of the "castrating bitch" bit - choose something else if that was too much) because we expect people to get over them. But large numbers of small harms have a significant effect on people. It's a bit like ac said somewhere above about suddenly being confronted with someone's sexual impression of yourself. If it happens once a month, who cares? If it happens a couple of times a day, it would give me the willies.
But large numbers of small harms have a significant effect on people.
You know, I just have a problem with classifying a polite attempt to chat as the kind of small harm that eats away at people. Even though it's annoying, some kinds of annoyance aren't additive. For example, I ride the subway, and get shoved or elbowed a dozen times a day -- while I'd rather not be, it's not as if each incident builds on the others until I dread my commute. It's a normal part of living in society, and it rolls off my back.
Some people are going to be hit on in public alot more than other people. The people who get hit on alot will probably not be too excited to be hit on again, unless the person hitting on them is bringing a lot more to the table than the median.
Right, but the question is not "how happy are you to be hit on" which realistically is probably going to be, "not very, unless I'm single and he's hot and/or charming or I'm coupled/a lesbian but he is so hot and/or charming it's deeply flattering." The questions are: is the hitter doing anything wrong? and "How should the hittee respond?"
Have I told this story yet?
I was looking for Aveda. I saw thie person, who I basically thought presented as a woman, albeit an unattractive one [e was riding a bicycle, had a big lumpy body, long hair, a few chin whiskers, a relatively high voice], if e knew where it was. After an exchange of a couple sentences, as I was on my way, e said, "Hey, you're cute. Do you want to go out?" I said, "Oh, I'm sorry, but I like men." E said, "Don't worry; I've got one of those too." And I was left to wonder whether e meant a penis or a boyfriend.
Hmm. Disturbing. And yet we can all agree that by asking you out, e, whatever e's gender, did nothing wrong! (On the principle that the unsettlingly androgynous need love too.)
Actually I wasn't even disturbed. I thought it was funny, and es cheery compliment and blunt approach in spite of es troll-like appearance was kind of charming--that's was how little harm I suffered from the incident, though I can easily acknowledge that different people have varying emotional reactions to being hit on by the unsettlingly androgynous and tactless.
I also couldn't tell whether the pre op mtf transsexual I met at Gay Pride parade was flirting or just admiring my exemplary feminine presentation when she said, "You're so pretty; I just want to look at you," but either way, even when she later gave me a cheek-kiss, no harm done! Boundaries? I don't need no stinkin' boundaries.
I just have a problem with classifying a polite attempt to chat as the kind of small harm that eats away at people
This is the issue, isn't it? For some people, it is.
Here's an instance of a perfectly civil come-on that made me unhappy and uncomfortable: a couple years back, when one of the guys at the 24-hour mini-mart down the block, the one I buy beer and cigarettes at during those all-nighters, leaned across the counter and said, kind of out of the blue: "I'd like to drink with you sometime."
Since I really wasn't expecting it, since I prefer to be asexual at the mini-mart at 2am, I was genuinely skeeved. After all, this was my designated if-I-think-someone-is-following-me-on-my-way-home place! I hope I didn't hurt the guy's feelings with what was probably a very surprised and alarmed facial expression.
And then for the next couple of weeks, I went into that store only during the older guy's shift.
So, I don't think the guy did anything wrong, per se (maybe professionally inappropriate, like the auto mechanic--customer relationship above), but I felt the come-on did me some small harm.
And then again, I almost certainly overreacted.
See, and there's no way to know whether the place you're asking is someone's safe place, or in their mental "not sexual here" zone.
I hate providing evidence to support ogged's anxieties, however. But not quite as much as I hate squirrels and wedgie volleyball briefs, for which my hatred are legion!
At this point I'm obviously just putting off doing something productive with my life, but I think even if you find being hit on to be a small harm, the larger question is "What are my culture's norms?" "How does my culture define 'personal space'? and "Is it desirable to re-norm the culture?"
The culture of NYC is hardly famously warm, and yet to me, the answers to the first two questions are clearly: my space does not encompass the right not to be spoken to in a manner that indicates a desire for friendly interaction, and if I have been politely approached, but don't want interaction, my culture's norms dictate that I should politely and firmly indicate so ("gracious" caused confusion, I think). As to whether it's desirable to re-norm the culture, I think it would be way more productive to be educating the would-be mack daddies as to what constitutes politeness and how to respond to 'no' signals than to argue that they should never try to make conversation with a random stranger; we're basically almost all the way to the world where only assholes try to engage you, and that rule would only push us further down the road. I don't want to see society re-normed to include a definition of personal space so broad that nice guys can't say, "That book looks interesting," as long as they understand that if I say "It is," and go back to reading, that's their cue to shut up. And still further, since I've been known to intitiate contact with a guy I find attractive, including using the "how's that book" gambit, and had it work fine, I want society's norms to smile on my own--quite inoffensive by my lights--behavior.
Arg. 475 is in fact skeevy. I don't think that's what LB, B, or I am talking about. An appropriate opening there would be something like, "Have you tried Celebration Ale? It's only available during the holidays. It's kind of hoppy, but it tones down as you go through a bottle."
As many people have pointed out, a lot of it depends on the woman. It seems to me that in a world in which women are constantly being hit on in blatantly skeevy ways – e.g., cat-calling and the like – _and_ stand a not-completely-trivial chance of being stalked by a man to whom they are too welcoming, a woman is perfectly entitled to find that all (or most) unwanted male attention blurs together into an undifferentiated mass of skeeviness. That, I take it, is ac's point. On other hand, I have a female friend who recently started living in the U.S. again after a number of years in Central Europe and is bothered by the fact that she isn't constantly being hit on all the time anymore. It takes all kinds.
But here's the key point from a man's perspective: you don't know which kind of woman you're dealing with ahead of time. And, moreover, for a non-sleazy guy, being thought of as sleazy is pretty terrible. It gnaws at you in the same way that having people think you're stupid gnaws at you. Hence, male reluctance to initiate things with strangers which isn't merely motivated by a fear of rejection.
For my part, I've been with the same woman since college. I find myself barely able to make friends as a grown-up. (Hence blogs.) I have no idea how I'd go about negotiating something as complicated as getting someone to date me.
If it weren't for wedgie volleyball briefs, there would be no volleyball.
All Jackmormon's hatred are belong to us.
It gnaws at you in the same way that having people think you're stupid gnaws at you.
Nobody thinks you're stupid, pjs. Just...special.
I hadn't seen pjs's perfect distillation before I decided to class up the joint with the wedgie briefs. I apologize. And what pjs said.
I'd probably feel the same way, under the same circumstances -- you can call it overreacting, but I'd overreact too. I still don't want to say that that's reason enough to tell men not to make approaches out of considerateness. (What may be going on here is that the venue -- late night, and you were alone -- makes the approach inherently somewhat threatening. I think ogged is wrongish in 476, at least as it applies to your situation: I think a considerate guy wouldn't have made a blunt approach under those circumstances, and that it wouldn't have taken too much thought to figure out that you might find it unsettling.)
I'm not sure if this is a workable argument, but I think Cala was onto something in 251 -- when it's jackassed to ask someone out, then only jackasses will ask people out.
Getting hit on (politely, again -- I'm using 'hit on' for brevity rather than for accuracy of description) in public is moderately disturbing because it's unconventional, and anyone who's willing to do something unconventional in one regard is someone who may be a serious loon in some other regard. So now, women get hit on rarely, and when we are, it's moderately disturbing. If we were hit on ten times more often, it wouldn't be ten times as disturbing, because the "what a weird thing to happen" effect would be lessened.
But at this point I'm arguing more because I enjoy it than because I'm certain of my position.
Eh, why do I bother commenting. What Tia said.
If we were hit on ten times more often, it wouldn't be ten times as disturbing, because the "what a weird thing to happen" effect would be lessened.
I don't think that's quite right. I think that if it happened ten times a day, even by really nice, polite guys, it would get annoying fast. (A lot of my sense of this is informed by a few of female friends who are frighteningly good looking. I never had much sympathy for the complaints of really good looking women; I always thought that their lives must have been unbelievably easy compared to the lot of the rest of us. I got to know one such woman, and she still has my sympathy. I wouldn't want to be a woman who was that good looking - life gets kind of creepy.)
At this point, I think that any man who's read through all of these comments is probably not in any danger of springing on a woman out of the blue. So, barring any pedegogical value to further anecdotization, what Tia and LB said.
Wait, I also want to applaud what pjs said about culture and context. Mores in the different places I've lived (hippie town in the Bay Area, Paris, NYC, Mainz) had different rules about this sort of thing. Hippies will ask you about your book with no specific intent in mind--and annoyingly won't get around to acknowledging any sort of desire until you're both actually naked; whereas, in Paris, if you don't actually wave the guy off when he tries to talk to you, you're presumed to be interested. Most places are between these extremes.
Anywhere you draw the inappropriate behavior line, someone's going to be unhappy. If you find you are too frequently engaged for your comfort, there are certain postures and stances you can adopt that will make you less likely to be engaged. That means neither that the engager is wrong, or that the engagee should not treat the engager with a modicum of civility. I also know some very attractive women, and they've learned to get through the world fine. It's not so much whether you're attractive, after all, as whether you're playing the purple flute.
Given the length and themes of this thread, it is shocking that that is the first purple flute reference.
It's not so much whether you're attractive, after all, as whether you're playing the purple flute.
You can have qualities that you were born with, like blonde hair and/or big boobs, that make you a target for truly crazy levels of attention.
And men can do very strange things. I was reading Siri Hustvedt's essays yesterday, and she mentioned how a strange man screamed "I love you!" at her 15 yr old daughter as he was stepping off the girl's subway car.
The point is not that some people are polite and some aren't; it's that your general experience of being a girl can be pretty random and frightening--and in some cases it takes a long, long while to get a handle on how to approach the world.
My own issue is that I look sweet, which is not at all the same thing as looking or trying to look sexy, and yet seems to get the same result. It's frustrating. And I think I'd be justified to lose my temper about it from time to time.
I'm not really advocating re-norming, so much as describing the mindset of a certain kind of woman. Or, possibly, a certain kind of mood that lots of different types of women can fall into periodically. And saying that you take your chances when asking people out.
Well now, I need the advice of the unfogged community about a particular encounter/ e-mail exchange.
Some guy at church gave me his e-mail address. I knew him throught the softball team. He seems kind of awkward generally, so I've had a hard time reading him.
The first time I chatted with him--as a spectator at one of the softball games--he said, "you, go to T church." So, he's definitely noticed me, but I also have a distinctive walk (not so much sexy, just distinctive--at least that's what my sister says), so that's not totally unheard of.
This guy sent out a bunch of e-mails to some of the members of the softball team inviting them to go swing dancing at the famous tech school in Cambridge.
I never responded and didn't want to go. (1.) I'm a very poor dancer and even basic classes move much too quickly for me. (2.) I don't have enough nice-ish clothes and didn't want to spend the money on the cover etc. and (3.) When I was in college, I thought that the older people who went to our college-aimed dancing lessons and other activities were kind of skeevy--unless they were comfortably grandparenty.
So, because I know that he works in computers, I sent him a quick e-mail the other day asking if he knew where I could get a cheap USB keyboard or whether he knew somebody who had one lying around that they didn't want.
He e-mailed me back and said that his car was in the shop, so getting into Boston was difficult, and he said something about my not going to the swing dancing. He said I guess that you're too shy or just really busy.
Now, I suppose that I can be shy. If I feel like I understand the rules of the encounter, then I'm not shy, and I tend to get SAD in November and December, so I was probably not super-outgoing then, but a big reason that I didn't go was that I thought it was sort of skeevy (probably unfairly), and I also thought he might be sort of interested in me, and I wasn't interested in him that way at all, though I don't want to be unfriendly in a group setting.
I e-mailed him back saying that I was sorry about his car etc., and I refrained from saying that I thought going to the dancing was skeevy. I could have said that I'm a poor dancer, but I didn't. I don't like the idea of being thought of as shy (even if I am sometimes), but I don't want to be cruel either. I do want to be clear that I'm not interested, but it isn't as though he ever asked me on a specific date or anything.
What's a girl to do?
This guy is just being, as you said, awkward. He asked you out, but he did it in a way that allowed you to avoid going, rather than to simply say "no." (As you probably should have done.) He likes you, so he's choosing to interpret your non-response as shyness, rather than as a "no."
So I think your sense of "skeeviness" is, if I may, more a sense of awkwardness--he was asking you out, but in a way that didn't *seem* like a date, so you responded in a way that didn't *seem* like a response, and there you are. He set you up b/c he was TOO FUCKING SHY TO JUST ASK YOU OUT. See the problem there, guys?
Anyway, the obvious approach at this point is just to do what you're doing and next time he asks you out (directly or through some annoying indirect method), to simply say, "thank you, but no."
On the larger question. I think the big problem is that we keep talking about whether it's okay to "hit on" women. No, in general, it isn't, unless you're heavily flirting and she's in the mood. But it IS okay to talk to strangers if you're not pushy or an asshole. And it IS okay to let friendly strangers who seem to enjoy the conversation know that you'd like to continue it somehow.
I do think that this is true, though:
The point is not that some people are polite and some aren't; it's that your general experience of being a girl can be pretty random and frightening--and in some cases it takes a long, long while to get a handle on how to approach the world.
But that's an experience thing as much as feeling confident and not afraid of rejection is an experience thing. I think in general it's a little silly to say "I'm not going to do X because it might offend someone" if you have no reason to think that someone would be likely to be offended. That way lies pussyfooting and passive-aggression and generally annoying behavior. Be friendly, ask if you have a question, and take no graciously, and it's all good. Hell, taking a no graciously is doing someone a favor, since part of the reason women get skeeved is from fear that "no" is going to be ignored or met with more aggressive tactics. It's reassuring when someone takes a no well.
It's reassuring when someone takes a no well.
Yes, I guess this is the best way to resolve the question. She may even turn around pursue you, if you back off very graciously. Or at least she may feel a twinge of remorse.
She may even turn around pursue you
Aiieeee!
She'd, hopefully, take a gracious no, too.
Thanks Dr. B. That's kind of what I thought. I do sometimes stand out, and often I get noticed by people who aren't interested me in a sexual way at all--or shouldn't be--people over 65 say. Or teachers (nothing wrong with them as a class--they just shouldn't be hitting on their own students).
I should have said "no" in the first place, of course.
#497: Yes, but you didn't because he DIDN'T MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT WAS A DATE INVITATION. I hate when people pull that shit. Then you're stuck in the awkward position of seeming to assume that it *is* a date invitation if you respond appropriately. Which is, of course, the point: then he can turn around and say, "oh, you didn't need to rsvp, it was an open invitation," and he can tell himself he didn't ever actually ask you out, so you never actually rejected him.
Gah.
There's an interesting-sounding book out called, "Self-Made Man: One Woman's Journey into Manhood and Back Again" by Norah Vincent. A la "Black Like Me," she made herself look like a guy (prosthetic penis and all) and passed as one for a year. As to dating, the review I link to below says that Vincent was "utterly astounded by the amount of rejection and hauteur that heterosexual men put up with." NYT review: http://tinyurl.com/cqn95