Something you want to talk about, ogged?
My favorite part of this blog is extrapolating the nature and degree of Ogged's misery from his ostensibly impersonal posts.
Don't worry Ogged, the right girl will come along someday.
Wpw. A seriously excellent point.
(I can't decide if ac mafia engagement in comments here would be seriously clarifying or lead us off into the bushes.)
This is what I get for trying to help the cold and unfeeling white man, isn't it?
3: Shouldn't it be "interpolating," as ogged is prior to his posts?
"Wpw" = "wow"? Or "Womens Physique World"?
One shouldn't ridicule Ogged for his coded confessions. His next step is refusing to seek help, and then denial, and so on until he hits bottom.
My mother was stoic, completely unsympathetic to whining, businesslike, and not at all gushy. She'd count as aloof. On the other hand, she wasn't clingy and never, ever nagged or criticized her adult kids. She definitely liked to see us now and then, but not too much. She made a whole new circle of friends after dad died and the kids all left home.
Her six kids are big on autonomy and have three minimally-successful marriages out of seven tries (counting "miserable but stable" as successful.) So there's a tradeoff.
But no nagging at all. My 60-year-old neighbor's 80-year-old mother just forced him choose between her and his new girlfriend. He's phoned her twice a day for years. He chose the girlfriend.
The pithy version is: "Never play poker with a man called Doc. Never eat at a place called Mom's. Never sleep with a woman whose troubles are worse than your own."
This is related to the general complaint that society just isn't set up for introverts.
(Obligatory link to the Jonathan Rauch essay on being an introvert).
I don't think this is actually much related to the introvert/extrovert problem. If I had to guess, I'd guess that introverts fall more on the interactive side.
"Are you so fast that you cannot see that I must have solitude?
When I am in the darkness, why do you intrude?
Do you know my world, do you know my kind
Or must I explain?
Will you let me be myself
Or is your love in vain?"
This post is somewhat comforting (10: not so much). I told a friend recently that it's nuts to think that one must spend every non-working, non-sleeping (albeit most sleeping ones too) moment with one's significant other, whether on the phone or in person. Somewhat saddened, he explained that this is why I don't have a girlfriend.
13: Yeah, this stuff mostly takes place on a one-to-one level, where introversion doesn't make much difference.
People who shop for their own underwear are functional human beings. People who report on their lunches probably also tall babytalk at their significant others.
13,16 Odd. Perhaps my perspective is skewed because I'm strongly introverted and tend to prefer autonomy.
I enjoy chatting about all sorts of inessentials, and I'm happy to do so but, ultimately, that's just a way to visit, I'm happy making decisions on my own without consulting with someone else.
Oddly, I almost made a joke about how the big surprise was that ogged would say that he was an interacter. Perhaps that's not a joke.
I'm strongly introverted and tend to prefer autonomy.
Me too, but I don't think this is a general characteristic of introverts.
ogged, today you should have chicken. not too much coffee. a bottle of water.
I believe you, just slightly surprised.
I'm not sure why I'm surprised, my friends don't all follow that trend, but this is one case where my own experience is so strong I just hadn't thought about the alternative.
On my way home from work, I saw some underpants I thought you would enjoy. Three pairs in your current rotation are significantly damaged. I've put them on your night stand, ogged, just beneath the reader's digest article I thought you should read. I've highlighted the important parts of the article.
I had a delicious bowl of mulligatawny soup for lunch today, btw. And pita bread straight from the oven. Mmm.
The white man doesn't need help because he is unfeeling. In other news, "clicking" or whatever is a bad proxy for placement on the interactivity/autonomy spectrum, since it's measuring something like "ease of conversation." You can hit it off with people and then wonder why the hell they call you to talk about ephemera.
19, 21: I'm quite introverted, and very much an interacter. I've thought, and worried, about this aspect of myself -- I'm very shy and anxious about meeting new people, and sometimes even socializing with my own friends can seem hard to do. On the other hand, being with my partner is terribly easy and pleasant -- it's pretty much like being by myself, except not as lonely. This means that when I feel a social impulse, it is often much easier to expend it on my partner, rather than forcing myself to interact with someone else. One day I'll be too old and tired to make the effort anymore, and then I'll never ever leave my apartment again.
Ogged's saying that it's probably a dealbreaker if a couple doesn't share these qualities (or share the same position along the spectrum of this quality), but I don't think that's exactly right. I used to always unthinkingly ask (because I'm a clingy child-man), "where are you going?" whenever s. left the room, and she used to answer (because she's an unfeeling robot) "to the store" no matter where she was going. Meh, that was fine.
People have told me they hate the question "How was your day?" because they think it sounds rote, as if you can't think of something more directed to ask. I ask it all the time, because I very much want to know, how was your day? Someone (I think Anne Lamott but can't find it) said "How was your day?" is the most loving question ever. I liked that.
I have an intuition that the aloof are actually bad people. Or not as good people. I'm fairly aloof.
I have an intuition that the aloof are actually bad people.
Less fun, at least.
It's time we start a support group for the Aloof.
And then there are *real* children, who demand a whole nother level of interaction.
I am trying to get caroline to the point where I can be in one room while she is in another, completley seperate room. So far she is ok for adjoining rooms. Leaving for work is still cause for a screaming floor tantrum.
Really, my daughter makes girlfriends who call you are work several times a day seem low maintainance.
Aloof! Aloof! Aloof are on fire!
We don't need no others
Let the motherfuckers burn!
Apo, yours was the better Bloodhound Gang parody, mine the better "Love Is..." reference. Let us share, like model blogsiblings.
30: One thing to remember about the aloof (and if given my druthers, I'd be one too) is that we still need human interaction, just not as much.
I think of myself as having a small human interaction stomach. Obviously, if I don't get any human interaction, I will starve. But I also get my fill pretty quickly, and after that, I really need to stop, otherwise I get that bloated feeling that comes when you eat too much pasta.
Eating human interactions can make you a popular person, depending on the case.
re 39
Rockmaster Scott And The Dynamic Three
Well, of course my point was that successful relationships are not a good thing, so my family is lucky. But compared to almost everyone else's mother I've ever heard about, the no-nagging no-clinging part was wonderful.
34: My daughters give me all the human interaction I can stand; everyone else can stick around only if they don't bother me with needless conversation. For some reason, my wife seems to resent this.
Re: WASPs: It's neither "stoic" nor "aloof"; it's "uptight" and "repressed". Sort of "is that a stick up your ass, or are you just glad to see me?"
I do quarrel with the categories: One can "interact" without being a togetherness junkie. I'd vote for "Dependent" as the other end of the scale. And it has nothing to do with shopping for unmentionables; it has to do with an inherent insecurity.
The Biophysicist is perfectly capable of both choosing and purchasing his own underwear, just as I am perfectly capable of vacuuming and hauling out the trash. We do each other the favour of taking on those tasks for each other because we like to, not because we must. We have separate interests - tho' The Biophysicist caters to my costuming fetish once a year or so by letting me dress him up for a masquerade - and don't feel the need to be in each other's pockets. [He's spending the weekend on a photo shoot; I'm teaching graphic design, after which we re0unite and engage in wild monkey love. TMI...] Were I a baby-talking attention-whore or he a micro-managing momma's boy, we'd never have got together in the first place, much less stayed that way.
I have my questions about anyone who likes to vacuum, take out the trash, or choose underwear.
Of course there are bad ends of the scale, but most people aren't there, and I was looking for neutral terms to describe the types.
Emerson is filled with suspicions.
Jesus Christ, DE, is there anything of which your are incapable? Lawyering, costuming, editing, graphic design, child-rearing...the list does seem to go on a bit more than is usual.
I don't care who chooses it, Emerson, but please tell me you'll be wearing underwear to the Portland meetup.
I think that familial interactedness doesn't necessarily relate to how one is with others, or in relationships. I think the last time I consulted my father on something was probably before I graduated high school. But I love seeking advice on nominal matters from my close friends. Come to think of it, my friends are more like family than my actual family or anyone I've dated--I still remain pretty aloof when I'm romantically involved with someone.
52: that's interesting, because I have read often that the reliance on peers and friendship as a substitute for family is a very American trait. People in this discussion normally cite the "Workplace as family" sitcom, the decline of extended families in the US, etc.
Maybe it has something to do with generational shifts--people often perceive their friends and peers as being less judgmental, and more knowledgeable. For example, my personal problems are mostly related to either a) my various romantic and sexual liaisons, or b) law school, and the future of my legal career. I love my father, but he's very disapproving of a) and lacks any knowledge about b), so he's not much good to me on either of those scores.
47: Emerson: We don't necessarily like the activity [well, OK, I like to shop...and I get to pick out the colours.], we just like to do favours for each other, without any quid pro quo nonsense.
50: Chopper: Jeez, everyone's gotta have a hobby or eighteen. I also cook and organise things in carefully marked boxes. ["If it moves, sue it; if it doesn't move, probate it label it."]
You must remember that I am a crone, and have had many, many years to learn all sorts of things. [Hell, I didn't even start law school until I was Dr B's age.] I also bore easily, and probably suffer from ADD, so the bouncing from career path to career path is almost de rigueur. I'm considering becoming an assassin for the CIA [Culinary Institue of America] for my next career move, specialising in obscure vegetable poisons. Or a blogger.
The trouble is that they aren't neutral, and are usually gendered. This has been discussed before, notably in the discussion of weakness here. You keep up the appearance of aloofness, while projecting your weakness on another group of people and then despising them for it. As Tia said in 451 on that thread:
In even more generalized, schematic terms: dominant class A projects quality it has decided is undesirable, even though it's an essential function of life, on oppressed class B. A then despises B for its association with the quality, even though it often needs B to take care of or address the quality in some way. It happens with race and housecleaning, gender and housecleaning, race and sexuality, gender and sexuality, etc. In the case above, it's men, women, emotional openness and emotional work.The classic scenario is that you'll go around being aloof, get kind of lonely, be needy with someone, get mad at yourself about it, and then choose to look down on the other person for it, rather than taking some responsibility, or being clear about the limits of your neediness. (It's hard to be clear when you're sort of in denial about this aspect of your personality.) Maybe it's fine if you actually are aloof, or clear, and live and die by that, but there's usually a lot of hypocrisy in this aloof self-conception.
Women do this with other women, too: most often their mothers.
(Was that productive, Tim?)
A lot of m. leblanc's phenomenon has to do with the fact that Americans often move very far away from home, both for schooling and afterwards. Which in turn has something to do with the sheer size of this country.
What drives my interest in threads like this is the barest perception of a delectable back story. Come ogged! Give us another hint!
Seems to me these sorts of reactions are all conditional. I can think of, for example, several men I've dated who seemed like they needed too much attention and so I broke it off, but that may have just been because I wasn't actually that into them. On the other hand, some of the men I've been head over heels for have tended to be much more aloof than I wanted, but that may just have been because they weren't that into me. Yeah I realize this is convoluted, I'm just saying sometimes your perception of how clingy someone is can change based on how much you actually like them.
56: We'll have to see where it goes, but that's the issue I was wondering about. Ogged's schema seems to suggest these things might be more matters of taste that should be suited, rather than worried about for moral implications. I'm not sure what's inappropriate about that. Which I guess means I'm not sure how appropriate "dominant" is to describe different tastes on such matters.
(the "mafia" thing was meant to be playful rather than insulting; I thought I stole it from a prior comment.)
but I don't think that's exactly right. I used to always unthinkingly ask (because I'm a clingy child-man), "where are you going?" whenever s. left the room, and she used to answer (because she's an unfeeling robot) "to the store" no matter where she was going. Meh, that was fine.
So you say. But look how that turned out.
I used to think there was something wrong with me, that when I was with someone and having a nice time, I didn't particularly want to leave, but when I was alone and having a nice time, I didn't particularly want company. Now, I think I've come to realize that it's not about the amount of time I spend alone or with others, but about the intensity of that time. One good solid afternoon with myself, and I'm ready for people. One satisfying evening with a lover and I'm ready to be alone. Do I really want to spend all weekend arguing with you about what kind of underwear you should buy, being indecisive about what movie to see or what restaurant to dine at? Hell, no. Optimist that I am, though, I'll probably hang around if you're being annoying, just waiting for you to get in a pleasant mood so we can fuck around joyfully and I can go home.
And build them an arena!
I just need Megan to know that I got the Sacramento humor.
That comment didn't really make sense. I got up a long time ago.
56:"The classic scenario is that...etc"
I was going to block quote the entire thing, and then express incredulity as a typical act of ironic self-deprecation, but I'm sulking.
Note:most people seem to describe themselves as aloof/shy. That really annoys me about people. Even tho it might be true. There may be 90 wallflowers to every ten mixers. But the truly aloof would describe herself as an extrovert, in order to throw the Other off-balance and maintain the empowering distance. There are Rules and Methods of Sociopathology.
Heebie_Jeebie, Bill O'Reilly is very fond of the loof.
Yes, Apo, I suspect that Dominedatrix also likes Brussels sprouts.
Making sense to text is not necessarily a ringing endorsement.
45 sounds like the inverse of me and Mr. B.
I think that the dichotomy Ogged's setting up is mistaken, or at least is only part of the story. It's less about interaction vs. aloofness, I think, than it is about what's behind the interaction/aloofness. E.g., a lot of people who are smothering, to use O's vocab, can be either v. needy, interaction-wise, or v. aloof, especially when they're angry or upset. And people who are cold can be v. interactive without really telling you much.
I think the distinction is about how people handle boundaries and emotional autonomy. Some couples are more entertwined, and others less so: some people are comfortable and skilled at that whole part of relationships where you're supposed to interpret the other person's moods and/or try to preempt or change them, and other people (like me) really hate doing that and hate having it done for them.
because few are equal to my interpretive powers.
So you say. But look how that turned out.
Making sense to text is not necessarily a ringing endorsement.
You're in some kind of mood, eh?
I have utilized those powers in discerning b-wo's true meaning.
My true meaning was, AWB has described a phenomenon I observe in myself, though I had not fully understood it before which time I read her comment.
That wasn't supposed to be an insult to text. Instead I praise his hermeneutics of wackiness.
hooray! thus indirectly praising those hermeneutics a second time! I kiss thee, ben w-lfs-n.
I was thinking that is was nice to have the old Ben back.
It's like, how much more dour could he be? And the answer is none. None more dour.
81: Just because w-lfs-n moved to the Bay Area doesn't mean he's gay, text.
well no, but it doesn't mean he wouldn't like a kiss either.
You don't like Bruseel sprouts? Are you mad? MAD??
I have occasionally been accused of being "needy" when my real intent was to get some decent loving so I could feel satisfied and go home. I got shit to do.
Cuppycake and I are pretty much opposites. He's very clingy. I'm not. He lives in the moment. I plan compulsively. He's an optimist. I hate the world. We argue the same way, though, explosive
Come to think of it, we're probably headed for a rocky divorce in five years.
Switch the genders around, Cala, and that's my parents, married almost forty years now.
Talk about infelicitous comments, Ben.
Let it be known that a key reason to like Brussels sprouts is that they go fucking awesome with bacon.
I'm going away for about an hour or so, but I just wanted to shout out that I'm going to need some romantic advice from the unfogged hivemind. Thanksgiving day is probably not the best time to find people online, but I'll check back in later. Is this the best thread to use or should I just derail the Thanksgiving thread?
You can get advice from me and M/tch over there -- we should be able to set you straight.
No, Clown is wrong. You should stay on this thread.
So, there's a guy that I met at a party a year ago at a friend's apartment. I didn't even remember him, but I saw him at the same party this year, and he just asked me out. The way that he did it is totally cheesy, and his e-mail was kind of awkwardly written. I haven't been asked out in a while, so it would be fun to go, but I don't want to lead him on as a heartless bitch..since I have a hard time seeing this going anywhere. Of course I don't know, but the e-mail is pretty cheesy.
So what, do you think it would be fun just "to go out on a date" or fun to "go out on a date with this guy"? Because if the former it seems like it would be pretty lame to use him as a vehicle for going out on a date -- otoh if he were going to get a chance at Bostonian Bliss that might make up for the being used part.
At the party I said something about not going into debt for a depreciating asset (e.g., a car), and then this guy said something about the tax benefits of depreciation. I pointed out that tax depreciation was a bit different from real depreciation and that it wasn't always desirable to have to take tax depreciation, particularly when it wasn't being offset against income. Depreciating your own non-business stuff isn't so helpful. He thought that I said that property wasn't depreciated (duh--you can only depreciate property) This isn't true. If teh value of your property goes up, you don't want to have depreciated it unless you could charge the depreciation against your income. Depreciating property just reduces your basis and means that you have to pay more gain when you sell it. It's sexy, no?
So Guy X sends an e-mail to our mutual friend and asks to have it forwarded to me. It's an attachment with an IRS booklet outlining depreciation rules. I e-mailed her back and said, "Tell Guy X that I only ever said that you couldn't depreciate real property used as a personal residence."
99 -- that kind of thing could result in embarrassment down the road. Kobe!
(I mean because what if the guy googles the text of the email he sent you and finds this thread? Can't really picture that happening but I am famous for failures of imagination. Well not actually famous but you get the idea.)
Well, I wouldn't use the exact text, but the basic gist.
If you think it will be fun, I say go. It's not leading someone on to go out on one date.
If you actively disliked the guy and were just going to get a free meal or whatever, that would be using him, but otherwise there's no harm in seeing how things go, again assuming that you think you'll enjoy it.
If you do decide to go, keep this first date low key. Don't agree to go anywhere expensive or formal or anything like that, so that there's less investment in it as a big deal and you won't feel that you lead him on or something if you decline to continue dating afterwards.
No problems then: go ahead!
Fuck you, Clown. We were this close to getting Teh E-mail.
e-mail 1 says,
"You are correct. Property is depreciable, not personal residences. I guess I could have just asked Friend A for your email.
I feel as if I know you as a good friend, though we have only met twice. You were so kind when we met last year that I was very comfortable talking with you this year. I wish I was able to stay and talk with you more.
So, how are you? I am spending Thanksgiving at my father's home in Town T. I have part of tomorrow and the rest of the week off. Will you be in town...?"
I said that I was in town, though working on Friday and Saturday, but that I'm free on Sunday. I also thanked him for his kind e-mail.
I got the following today:
"You are very welcome. Thank you for the duly kind response.
May I presume in asking you to share some of your time off on Sunday with me? I was thinking of a meal or a movie or both. Or perhaps something less taxing on your time - coffee or tea? Maybe you have something else in mind?
Well I am off to see my family! We are having dinner a bit late this year in an attempt to work around my nephews' naps."
The writing is strange. He seems like a really nice guy, and he might get, if not actual bliss, some action. I don't want to hurt him though. I don't see him as a total equal though. I might even feel as though I had to take care of him, and I certainly don't want to use him. He isn't what I would call witty, but he seems to be quite sweet.
Thoughts?
98: Wow, BG, such dirty talk for two people who barely know each other!
His e-mail strikes me as kind of odd, and the language is somewhat stilted or awkward, but it's not reall cheesy. I was picturing bad poetry and talk of climbing some mountain in Wales with a bottle of pilfered port of something.
I say go for coffee with him, and see how you feel after that.
BG, I think M/tch is right. One date is one date. It's not like you can't stand him and are only saying yet out of pity or because he's going to take you to some cool/expensive/etc. event.
Your instincts are probably right over the long term (if you don't see him as a true equal and are feeling kind of protective)...but one date is not the long term. And people can surprise you. No harm in having coffee with the guy. You can even dial down the expectations beforehand if you're really worried about it.
The language seems pretty stilted but I can't tell if that's original or a product of your paraphrasing. If the former, I'm not sure how I would respond to such a weird advance.
Also maybe he's just a poor writer -- did he sound that affected in person?
Clearly you should wait for the next and nearest meet-up and invite him for full peer review.
Unfogged meet-ups are actually an excellent first date venue.
I'ver gotten really bad poetry in the past. One guy composed a dinner invitation in Homeric Greek. Another one wrote a sonnet to me in the style of a Spenser sonnet. I wish I still had that. After I told him that the fact that we were both Christians didn't mean that we were right for eachother, I got another poem which ended "Like Diana chaste and fair/ All I am and all I have I humbly offer you." I had to pull him aside after Latin prose composition and tell him to cut it out.
I'm kind of inclined toward something like coffee plus. A sandwich to keep me from fainting would be nice, but I don't want to make him take me to a movie or out to dinner.
111: No he does not sound affected in person, but that speaks to the issue of equality. I'm not a very good writer, but I do write better than he does. I don't want to feel superior to him.
What was cheesy was that he used an IRS bulletin to hit on me.
116: See, I think this speaks to your instincts about your feelings more than the objective cheesiness. From a person you want to hear from, an IRS bulletin is appealingly quirky.
I vote for coffee with an unannounced after-activity (e.g., museum visit). If the coffee goes well, suggest the after-activity. If not, run away.
"museum visit" s/b "look at my etchings"
Jeez, I'm tired. Good night all. Happy Thanksgiving. Bostoniangirl, good luck with finding a happy solution to your question.
Those emails sound pretty douchey to me. "I feel as if I know you as a good friend, though we have only met twice."? What the hell? For Christ's sakes, just say "I had a good time with you, and would like to take you out for coffee." Was he this way in person as well?
No, not that douchey in person, but, yes, "I fee; as if I know you as a good friend, though we have only met twice" did set off my antennae. I think he may really mean it though which is disturbing in its own way.
Out here in Mormonville that's the kind of stuff that often results in a marriage proposal inside of the first 5 dates. "The Spirit is telling me you're The One for me."
Also, "You were so kind" sounds way pathetic and needy. I do not sense fun times ahead with this dude.
This date doesn't sound like M-fun to me.
Well, no. But I'm not an M-fun kind of girl anyway.
I'm thinking that I'll say yes to something really low key--maybe coffee with a sandwich or tea and take it from there. And it isn't totally leading him on, right? I mean, he gets to spend an hour or two with me and presumably he wanted to do that anyway, right?
I wouldn't think of that as leading on. Get a free sandwich and coffee, and if it gets iffy run for it.
Under any normal circumstances there is no way this is "leading him on." It's one date.
What would be abnormal circumstances? Well, if he's *so* awkward or immature or clingy that he's going to read Way Too Much into this one date. To that end, GSwift is right that his "you were so kind" is a bit of a flag. Still, it doesn't strike me as a neon warning light, just a little flag.
What's the worst-case scenario? He wants a second date; you don't. So meet him in public, have your own transportion so you can leave when you want, and give him limited personal info (does he already know where you live?). You'll retain control and the worst that will happen is that he'll send you a few sad e-mails afterwards, trying to follow up.
Unless I'm missing something much bigger here, this is just one of those life-has-risks situations. His risk is that you won't like him enough for a second date. Yours is...I dunno. What do you feel is at risk?
No huge risks. We have a couple of acquintances in common, but it's nothing insurmountable. I'd rather dish to my internet friends than to people who might meet him in real life. So thanks all, and I'll let you know how it goes.
I'm not an M-fun kind of girl anyway.
Maybe that's the problem. Just go have sex with him, then throw him off of a roof.
You forgot the part about the mood lighting, apo.
For the record, I have never had sex with someone, then thrown him off the roof.
Yeah, if you throw him off the roof first, he just lies there like a sack of potatoes during the sex.
You forgot the part about the mood lighting, apo.
Wrong thread, M/tch.
Throwing your partner off the roof decreases your chances for round two.
Or guarantees them. They rarely get up and run away.