wait, I feel like I need more info on monday guy (link to a comments thread?). because that strikes me as a rather off-putting, presumptuous demand unless some serious steps down the road to presumed monogamy have already been taken. if he were really that into you he would be trying to win you over to wanting him alone, not risking losing you by a sudden my way or the highway gambit. that strikes me more as controlling and coming from a sense of entitlement, rather than one of yearning, desire for your deep approval, and so on.
in re: x, I don't think x sucks either, so long as the facts are as given. getting together with someone who has a crush on you doesn't make you a bad person, especially if you think you might develop some feelings for them. you are also not under a life-long ban never to get involved with friends of an ex (in this case, a y). however, there are some sneaking subtextual possibilities, which could make x's situation ethically dubious. if x were leading z on in an attempt to make y jealous, or just wanting somehow to insinuate x's self into y's circle of friends and life, that would be bad. if y and z are very good friends, and x knows that y will be hurt by any x-z coupling, that's also not good. if x knows x isn't really interested in z, and knows that y and z will become estranged, thus harming both y and z, again, bad. so, it all depends on how close z and y are, and how honest x is being with xself about why x is doing this.
And what Rosy-fingered Alameida said about the x and y subtextual possibilties. I thought it was a little strange that X introduced his/her question, which is really one about his/her behavior towards Z, with the backstory about Y, who does not really figure into the dilemma s/he has arranged for him/herself vis-a-vis Z at all, unless there is something s/he is not telling us. (These subtextual possibilities do not, afaict, extend to your situation, Tia. Though there may of course be other stuff playing into your story.)
And yes, what Alameida said, except I might add it's maybe not wise to even try with Z if only because, as Y's friend, Z will never be able to worm into X's still-full heart.
Speaking of still-full heart, when are the four weeks over? What will you do when that time comes?
Alameida has the XYZ affair pretty well nailed down. I concur completely.
As for Tia's Mr. Monday -- I don't find it unreasonable that he would say, "if we're going to see each other, I'd prefer that we be exclusive." I think Tia's free to say, "in that case, nah," or, "let's try it for a couple of weeks."
caution with Monday's feelings over openness to the possibility that things might develop or change
These things aren't mutually exclusive. Caution with his feelings is admirable, and (I think) called for, but isn't the overriding priority. Everyone enters every relationship knowing that eventual dumpage is a possibility. It's the price of doing business. So, what's the harm in dipping your toes into temporary minor commitment?
Tia, forgive me for asking this, and delete if you don't care to discuss, but how much of this conundrum and the Sir Roger Hitler situation tie into your previously revealed kink leanings? Are there dom/sub things we're not cluing into?
In fact the only reason I'm even awake is that there was a totally wimpy earthquake (but not so wimpy that it didn't wake me up, see) and my brane is in far too something a state to something blah.
I don't find it unreasonable that he would say, "if we're going to see each other, I'd prefer that we be exclusive."
I don't know. It seems a strange thing to request after one date. Also, words of caution: the first "relationship" following a long, committed one almost always ends very badly if it begins without sufficient in-between single time. Apostradvice: you can't possibly be ready for an exclusive relationship yet. Say no.
I don't know. It seems a strange thing to request after one date.
I haven't really read the full post. I think reading blogs has made it harder for me to read longer paragraphs. That admitted, why not request it? Assuming sufficient interest, you're agreeing not to see someone until he starts to bore the fuck out of you, or whatever. Maybe a month; maybe less, maybe more. But it's unlikely that your opportunity costs will be that high.
I'm with mrh that requesting exclusivity isn't weird; turning it down, on the other hand, isn't in any way wrong. And Apo is right that you probably aren't ready for serious and exclusive yet.
On Math Whiz, I don't see that they've done anything all that wrong, but they're clearly still hung up on Y. Or what Alameida said.
The first two and last two sentences of 15 are what I would say (the middle, I know not of). I would say something like, "Gosh, I like you and I'd like to keep seeing you, but I'm really not ready to make it that serious yet." If he doesn't like that, he's a bit too controlling and you're well rid of him most likely.
It might depend on the relationships, but really if he knows your situation he should be ready to ask nicely for something and have it nicely refused, and deal.
Bad relationships are the end phase of good relationships. Some good relationships last as little as ten seconds, and then are replaced with robust, durable bad relationships.
"Good" relationships, should there actually be such, are time-consuming and expensive.
That Tia is (one? two?) weeks removed from Graham imposing a no-see period because they are having trouble staying away from one another. [Caveat: I am diagnosing people I don't know from a distance and with incomplete information, so take my diagnosis for what it's worth.] There are still way too many bags to unpack from that exclusive relationship to step into another one. Not fair to Sir Roger Hitler and not healthy for Tia.
One date isn't enough time to make a decision on exclusivity.
10: Chopper, I was trying not to discuss as much, because I was starting to feel like I just didn't have the strength to deal with it all being such a high profile person on this blog. I want nothing better to cough up information about my personal life for your entertainment, but it is hard sometimes to absorb all the opinions! But certainly, that's part of the reason I found it so unfathomnable that Sir Roger Hitler Bacon's "let's put you in a cab" wasn't accompanied by an offer to pay for it, since that would have been, not only considerate under the circumstances, but so very, very conventional. D is supposed to go out of D's way to make S comfortable and to take care of S, unless you're one of those "just abuse me and treat me like a dishrag" people which I am not and everyone I deal with knows it. As for the Monday guy, that's probably part of it. I'm sure he feels he can't be in the right emotional space if I'm seeing three other people. But even if it weren't part of it I don't think it would be crazy. Back in the old serial vs. parallel dating thread I said I thought it was reasonable to ask for monogamy early if the parallel model doesn't work for you.
Apo, the monday guy isn't Sir Roger Hitler. How can we trust your diagnosis based on incomplete information when you don't even attend to the information you do have?
X seems to be hung up on Y, and I think Y and Z are closer friends than X is letting on.
Tia's Mr. Monday is just asking her to be exclusive, right? I'm not sure of the norms in NYC, but here it's sort of like this: one night stands aren't assumed to be exclusive; single dates with no sex aren't assumed to be exclusive; but, and here's where it gets weird, relationships where the twofriends end up sleeping together after a few weeks of intensified flirting are assumed to be exclusive.
If you found that as confusing as I did, it just means that everyone needs to get on the same page, and he's done that, maybe because they were sort of friends first. 'No, I'm not ready for a relationship now' is a perfectly fine response from Tia if that's what she wants.
20: Time-consuming isn't really a downside if it's a good relationship, though; it's more of a benefit. And if you mean monetarily expensive, an established relationship doesn't cost that much--it's the early stage dating (going out to dinner and such) that gets pricey.
One date isn't usually enough time to make a decision on exclusivity, but you had sex on the first date, right? Some people don't like to date people they know are sleeping with more than one person at a time. If that's the situation, the exclusivity thing is rushed but I don't think a completely inappropriate request. If you aren't sleeping with him, it does seem pretty soon.
Ah, sorry. My eyes skipped right over the "not" preceding Sir Roger. Doesn't change any of my advice, though. The request isn't inappropriate on his end; I'm looking at it entirely from Tia's current milieu. Might lead to problems when Graham calls in a couple of weeks.
30: then it's a little fast, but maybe he just really like likes you, and wants to know if you're on the same page. Still, you haven't done anything that could hurt his feelings, so, "Not yet" is still an okay response. (And pretty much agreeing with apostropher: rebound relationships suck.)
(Making inappropriate assumptions about gender and probably other attributes):
A young Casanova named X
Found himself at a crossroads, perplexed:
"There's this lady named Y
Who's the apple of my eye;
But it's Z with whom I can have sex!"
Also, "perplexed" doesn't rhyme with "X" and "sex". And there's plenty out there to rhyme with "Y" -- why go with the cliche that contains too many feet?
The "with whom" is awkward, but otherwise line 5 seems ok to me.
"It's the lady named Y/for whom I pine and sigh"? Parallelism with the structure of the fifth line, but the 4th line doesn't flow so well; too much assonance, maybe. Or maybe the stress really goes on 'whom'.
But apostropher, exclusive doesn't necessarily mean long-term. I agree with your "no long-term commitments" caution, but I'm not sure it necessarily applies.
Weiner, I hate to be a conservative about this, but I think one of the long understood rules the Mineshaft is that no one defends Wolfson. Fucker is young, hung, and has lots of run--he doesn't need the help.
I can imagine plently of conversations, even on the first coupling, where a request for exclusivity would be understandable. I mean, at least you know what sort of relationship he's pursuing, right?
And then you can say no, or not yet, and he can get mad and fuck off, if he wants. All rather praiseworthily aboveboard, I'd say.
X's dilemma seems to have been perfectly described by Alameida, but I'd add the observation that worrying about how best to protect somebody else's feelings can be somewhat unfair. "I'm afraid of leading you down the primrose path" usually provokes anger rather than gratitude...
There once was a Kid from Modesto
Who rhymed by a strange manifesto;
"Not quite," said Drymala,
And Wolfson said, "Holla --
Let's polish line 4, and then, Presto!"
An angry young playwright from Texas
Criticized rhyming of x's:
"One word ends with a t
And one doesn't, you see!"
Then went back to discussing the sexes.
The Mineshaft's own enfant terrible,
Wolfson's always ready to quibble.
Fucker's young, and he's hung,
And's got plenty of run;
Ideally I would be able to make some kind of basketball double-entendre here that ended with "dribble".
Who am I to argue with Mutombo -- obviously, me. Really? I had "love" "far" and "plex" stressed, which gives me three feet and an extra unstressed syllable, but maybe the stresses don't go there.
We might be able to solve it by shifting 'said', though:
A young Casanova named X
Whose love life was far too complex
Said "I pine and I sigh
for a lady named Y
but it's Z with whom I can have sex!"
Which also gives the same number of syllables to 3 and 4.
Needs a stressed syllable between "B-Wo's" (or "Wolfson's") and "always".
No, no, no -- now we're back to square one with the different numbers of feet for lines 1 and 2. In my construction, "Wo's" is the accented syllable. Which is a little clumsy still, but much less clumsy than "Wolfson's".
Lines 1 and 2 should have the same number of feet, ideally.
Lines 1 and 2 of 64 both have 3 feet. Line 2 has an extra unstressed syllable at the beginning, but I think this is a feature, not a bug. If you really wanted to make it go away, you could end line 1 with a colon or em dash, and drop "Said".
I count three feet in line 1, though, unless we have different definitions of 'feet':
A young Cas a no va named X
- ^ - - ^ - - ^
Three feet, it's just that the first is an iamb instead of an anapest.
(or, on preview, what 79 says, though if you do the colon you have to change "his" to "my." You could then start it off with "said" but that would presumably reintroduce the problem, unless you toss in a waste syllable like "oh" at the beginning of 2).
Namely:
Said a young Casanova named X:
"Oh, my love life is far too complex!
I pine and I sigh
for a lady named Y
but it's Z with whom I can have sex!"
Still asymmetry between 3 and 4, though, unless you put in another waste syllable. But on the whole? Symmetry isn't so great. It sounds better with the extra unstressed syllables in 64, IMO; they make the lines flow more naturally from the previous, similarly-metered lines.
Has anyone else here read The Tunnel, which includes a few limericks every few pages or so throughout its massive length, in reference to an ongoing search by two History profs for The Perfect Dirty Limerick?
[The novel is only enjoyable if you enjoy feeling visceral moral repulsion (not due to the limericks, which are, though unbelievably dirty, relatively harmless), so don't expect a non-stop laff riot.]
You will find, if you read all the best,
That the limerick's anapest-stressed:
Diddy-dee diddy-dum
Is its rhythm and, Chum,
This one's anapest-blessed like the rest.
Although! If you read David's other limericks, when he starts out with an iamb in line 1 instead of an anapest, he follows through symmetrically with an iamb in line 2.
Cried our young Casanova called X:
'Oh, my love life is far too complex!
I pine and I sigh,
For the love of Miss Y,
While Miss Z demands mind-blowing sex.
A couple I know used to date
And still hunger for sex that was great
Though the pair are estranged
People's tastes never change
Though one gets some fresh meat on one's plate
97: Glenn Reynolds, a faux-libertarian,
Is so tiresome that I'd say there's nary an
idea in his thinking
worth quoting or linking;
he's just a dull, whining contrarian.
The gang at a blog where Chopper goes
Let out poesy in a hundred flows
He declared strong and hearty
"If I'd known of this party
My dick I would bury, deep in the mash potatoes!"
I'm really busy today, but if I had time, I'd like to outsource the writing of a limerick that rhymes Roger with lodge 'er (and dodger?) and/or Bacon with stake in.
Our hero, a would-be Don Juan,
Wanted Y, but when he'd gone wooin',
Found not she at all,
But Z came to his call:
But could this mean trouble strong brewin'?
There once was a man hight R. Bacon
Who as a matter of rule put no stake in
His partner's climaxing
Or subsidized taxiing
And that's why, despite being named "Bacon", he won't be porking Tia again.
A cad known as Bacon (Sir Roger)
Screwed Tia but then wouldn't lodge her
Sent her home on the train
Through the cold and the rain
To Brooklyn, the home of the Dodger(s).
I temporarily read this as "subsidized taxing," and was therefore trying to figure out both what this would be and what it has to do with anything. Actually, I know what a tax subsidy is, so maybe it's just the process of using those.
There once was a cad -- call him Roger
Worried more about sleep than his todger,
Which after that tryst,
Should be given a twist,
Bedding Tia, and refusing to lodge'er.
130 -- I don't understand. Had you somewhere previously made the "Dodger(s)" joke, that I am missing it? Or what are you saying you did that was creative and appalling, if slightly unoriginal?
The limerick to which w/d refers (I see the archiving didn't quite format things right, hmmm).
136: I mean that the way LB fudged is a pretty standard way, and that the way I fudged was bold, interesting, and compellingly personal, even if it's been done before.
B-but you didtn' abandon scansion in your last line! you had a nice last line of iamb-anapest-anapest, with a funny (s) at the end of it! A perfect limerick says I. And as for abandoning scansion, reckon I did it long before young B-Wo, in 65. (Mebbe that's what he meant by "unoriginal" -- it was hardly original when I did it, or FTM when Tom Lehrer did it.)
I pronounce the Byronic "Juan" basically as "jewin'".
Also, my way has a distinguished pedigree! Witness the Rev. Patrick Brontë:
To novels and plays not inclined,
Nor aught that could sully her mind,
Temptations may shower
Unmoved as a tower
She quences the fiery arrows.
141, it's not the abandomnent of scansion, it's the abandonment of any pretense whatsoever to being a proper line in a limerick. You did do it in 65, but I'm afraid I have to say that it only works when done well.
It was only a year and a half ago,
In a city we'll call C,
That X dated there one whom we'll call Y,
Who's friends with one we'll call Z.
And this person X lived with no other thought
than to continue to love Y and not Z.
Then Y broke it off when X moved away
From this city we call C,
But X loved with a love that was more than love,
Just not for the one we call Z.
With a love that the date-like situations of recent
Failed to turn towards Z.
And this was the reason not long ago,
In this city we call C,
That an e-mail came out of an account by night
Pleading, "What should I do about Z?";
So that this high-flown blogger thought
And said, "This applies to me!
Should I settle up in exclusivity
With one who's to me like Z?"
Also, what alameida said - as long as the situation described is as it's described, and none of this has to do with trying to worm one's way back onto another's radar, etc., then I don't think X has done anything wrong. However, what are the odds of that? If a romantic triangle were ever that honest and innocent, the very Earth would be rent in two to swallow them all up and hide them from the eyes of a tarnished and jealous world.
As for Monday guy, a gentle 'not quite yet' is probably in order.
And there are lots of good relationships. I'm in one. My parents are in one. My sister is in one. But saying that probably doesn't make it better for anyone who thinks otherwise, so I'll just stop.
Mister Monday, make me come again please
Here I am on my knees begging if you please
And the night you don't come my way, Oh
I pray and pray for each day
Cos we love you, Mister Monday!
He's a real Monday man,
Living in his Monday land,
Making all his Monday plans
For him and Tiiiiiiiiiia....
Monday man, don't worry [about exclusivity],
Take your time, don't hurry [the relationship],
Save it all, til somebody else lends you a hand [ATM]....
Hasn't got a point of view,
Knows not where he's going to,
Isn't he a bit like Ben and Wiener.....
Monday man, please listen [to the Unfoggedtariat],
You don't know, what your missin' [in Tia's boudoir],
Monday man, the world [of good sex] is at your command...
He's a real Monday man,
Living in his Monday land,
Making all his Monday plans
For him and Tiiiiiiiiiia.
Making all his Monday plans
For him and Tiiiiiiiiiia.
X is a little bit jerky, but--unless Alameida's right and there are some unarticulated motives going on there--not terribly jerky. It's kind of crappy to ask out someone who likes you, and who you are not interested in, just b/c you're hung up on someone else. It's less crappy to *agree* to go out if someone asks, but in my book, asking signals interest. If I found out someone had asked me out just because I was a warm body, I'd be pissed.
Re. Tia's situation: my advice is do NOT agree to be "exclusive" with someone you have dated once. That's insane. If he likes you and wants you to like him, his job is to keep dating for a while and see if a relationship develops--not to impose a relationship on you from the outset. That just sounds creepy and controlling to me. Managing someone else's insecurity is not your job. He sounds like a jerk to me.
169: But it's not about insecurity, it's just about the kind of relationship Mr. Monday is willing to have. I don't think there's necessarily any implication of serious commitment involved in this.
B in 169 wrote, It's kind of crappy to ask out someone who likes you, and who you are not interested in, just b/c you're hung up on someone else.
That's what I was going to say, only B says it better than I could. I sort of think that X sucks. Even though the initial description says that "X asks Z on
a couple of date-like situations in part to see if something
might develop (and in part to avoid sitting at home thinking
about Y)," I had a strong feeling that the latter motive was far more prominent than the part about wanting to see if aomething might develop. In short, it seemed to me that X was leading Z on, and that sucks.
167: When I was a kid, one of my nicknames was "goo," and my parents made up songs about me to the tune of pop songs. One of them was to the tune of "Nowhere Man" and it went, "She's a little goo goo goo/Don't know what to do do do/'Cause she's just too too too too/Hard to handle sometimes." Now you've got that in my head.
We may be related. My mother used to sing, to the tune of Yellow Submarine, "We all live in a house with [Dr. Oops], a house with [Dr. Oops], a house with [Dr. Oops]. We all live in a house with [Dr. Oops] and she's nice enough, to live there too." (It doesn't scan particularly well at the end.)
They also sang a song about the Richard Scary character Lowly Worm to the tune of "Lonely Girl." It went, "Hey there, Lowly Worm, Lowly Worm/Don't you know this little goo loves you?/Hey there, Lowly Worm, Lowly Worm/Don't you know you have a friend in goo?"
Oh man, my dad, who is a great singer and who I believe has latent compositional talent, used to make up songs in Arabic about us various kids, with rhyming and everything. I believe mine had something about my being like both a horse and a cauliflower, because both of those words rhyme with "silvana."
Probably nobody is reading at this point, but I was wondering whether we could have--in addition to Ask the Mineshaft Love and Personal Life edition, a more work-based edition. Ask the Mineshaft Career Edition.
wait, I feel like I need more info on monday guy (link to a comments thread?). because that strikes me as a rather off-putting, presumptuous demand unless some serious steps down the road to presumed monogamy have already been taken. if he were really that into you he would be trying to win you over to wanting him alone, not risking losing you by a sudden my way or the highway gambit. that strikes me more as controlling and coming from a sense of entitlement, rather than one of yearning, desire for your deep approval, and so on.
in re: x, I don't think x sucks either, so long as the facts are as given. getting together with someone who has a crush on you doesn't make you a bad person, especially if you think you might develop some feelings for them. you are also not under a life-long ban never to get involved with friends of an ex (in this case, a y). however, there are some sneaking subtextual possibilities, which could make x's situation ethically dubious. if x were leading z on in an attempt to make y jealous, or just wanting somehow to insinuate x's self into y's circle of friends and life, that would be bad. if y and z are very good friends, and x knows that y will be hurt by any x-z coupling, that's also not good. if x knows x isn't really interested in z, and knows that y and z will become estranged, thus harming both y and z, again, bad. so, it all depends on how close z and y are, and how honest x is being with xself about why x is doing this.
Posted by alameida | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 6:03 AM
I find myself in a somewhat Xian situation
Wait, you mean you're about to experience redemption at the hands of Our Savior?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 6:14 AM
And what Rosy-fingered Alameida said about the x and y subtextual possibilties. I thought it was a little strange that X introduced his/her question, which is really one about his/her behavior towards Z, with the backstory about Y, who does not really figure into the dilemma s/he has arranged for him/herself vis-a-vis Z at all, unless there is something s/he is not telling us. (These subtextual possibilities do not, afaict, extend to your situation, Tia. Though there may of course be other stuff playing into your story.)
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 6:23 AM
Oh, Tia, stop looking for love, because, see? Love is already looking for you.
And yes, what Alameida said, except I might add it's maybe not wise to even try with Z if only because, as Y's friend, Z will never be able to worm into X's still-full heart.
Speaking of still-full heart, when are the four weeks over? What will you do when that time comes?
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 6:42 AM
Alameida has the XYZ affair pretty well nailed down. I concur completely.
As for Tia's Mr. Monday -- I don't find it unreasonable that he would say, "if we're going to see each other, I'd prefer that we be exclusive." I think Tia's free to say, "in that case, nah," or, "let's try it for a couple of weeks."
caution with Monday's feelings over openness to the possibility that things might develop or change
These things aren't mutually exclusive. Caution with his feelings is admirable, and (I think) called for, but isn't the overriding priority. Everyone enters every relationship knowing that eventual dumpage is a possibility. It's the price of doing business. So, what's the harm in dipping your toes into temporary minor commitment?
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:03 AM
The picture of Taylor Hicks that AWB linked to makes it look like he's trying to poo.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:04 AM
This is like deciding which opposum is ugliest.
Relationships are always bad. There should be no relationships.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:05 AM
Opposum? No, I'm forum.
Posted by Anthony | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:11 AM
7: I come as close as I can to banning relationships, but it does help with the VD-anxiety.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:14 AM
Tia, forgive me for asking this, and delete if you don't care to discuss, but how much of this conundrum and the Sir Roger Hitler situation tie into your previously revealed kink leanings? Are there dom/sub things we're not cluing into?
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:15 AM
This questions is formatted like a pome, so let's make it one.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:21 AM
What's wrong with relationships? Aside from the usual problems that acompany bad ones, I mean.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:22 AM
Too bad I suck at scansion.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:22 AM
In fact the only reason I'm even awake is that there was a totally wimpy earthquake (but not so wimpy that it didn't wake me up, see) and my brane is in far too something a state to something blah.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:26 AM
I don't find it unreasonable that he would say, "if we're going to see each other, I'd prefer that we be exclusive."
I don't know. It seems a strange thing to request after one date. Also, words of caution: the first "relationship" following a long, committed one almost always ends very badly if it begins without sufficient in-between single time. Apostradvice: you can't possibly be ready for an exclusive relationship yet. Say no.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:28 AM
This is like deciding which opposum is ugliest.
Coming from you, Emerson, I am guessing that this is a question that has real consequences for the opposums (opposa?) in question.
My question is, in your judgement, which opossum wins? The ugliest or the least ugly?
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:34 AM
I don't know. It seems a strange thing to request after one date.
I haven't really read the full post. I think reading blogs has made it harder for me to read longer paragraphs. That admitted, why not request it? Assuming sufficient interest, you're agreeing not to see someone until he starts to bore the fuck out of you, or whatever. Maybe a month; maybe less, maybe more. But it's unlikely that your opportunity costs will be that high.
Apo, what am I missing here?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:39 AM
I'm with mrh that requesting exclusivity isn't weird; turning it down, on the other hand, isn't in any way wrong. And Apo is right that you probably aren't ready for serious and exclusive yet.
On Math Whiz, I don't see that they've done anything all that wrong, but they're clearly still hung up on Y. Or what Alameida said.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:41 AM
The first two and last two sentences of 15 are what I would say (the middle, I know not of). I would say something like, "Gosh, I like you and I'd like to keep seeing you, but I'm really not ready to make it that serious yet." If he doesn't like that, he's a bit too controlling and you're well rid of him most likely.
It might depend on the relationships, but really if he knows your situation he should be ready to ask nicely for something and have it nicely refused, and deal.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:45 AM
Bad relationships are the end phase of good relationships. Some good relationships last as little as ten seconds, and then are replaced with robust, durable bad relationships.
"Good" relationships, should there actually be such, are time-consuming and expensive.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:46 AM
20: Emerson, you need to collect all this wisdom and publish it. Sort of a "Tainted Chicken Soup for the Soul."
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:50 AM
Apo, what am I missing here?
That Tia is (one? two?) weeks removed from Graham imposing a no-see period because they are having trouble staying away from one another. [Caveat: I am diagnosing people I don't know from a distance and with incomplete information, so take my diagnosis for what it's worth.] There are still way too many bags to unpack from that exclusive relationship to step into another one. Not fair to Sir Roger Hitler and not healthy for Tia.
One date isn't enough time to make a decision on exclusivity.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:51 AM
10: Chopper, I was trying not to discuss as much, because I was starting to feel like I just didn't have the strength to deal with it all being such a high profile person on this blog. I want nothing better to cough up information about my personal life for your entertainment, but it is hard sometimes to absorb all the opinions! But certainly, that's part of the reason I found it so unfathomnable that Sir Roger Hitler Bacon's "let's put you in a cab" wasn't accompanied by an offer to pay for it, since that would have been, not only considerate under the circumstances, but so very, very conventional. D is supposed to go out of D's way to make S comfortable and to take care of S, unless you're one of those "just abuse me and treat me like a dishrag" people which I am not and everyone I deal with knows it. As for the Monday guy, that's probably part of it. I'm sure he feels he can't be in the right emotional space if I'm seeing three other people. But even if it weren't part of it I don't think it would be crazy. Back in the old serial vs. parallel dating thread I said I thought it was reasonable to ask for monogamy early if the parallel model doesn't work for you.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:55 AM
Apo, the monday guy isn't Sir Roger Hitler. How can we trust your diagnosis based on incomplete information when you don't even attend to the information you do have?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:56 AM
Sir Roger Hitler and Monday guy are two different people
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:56 AM
X seems to be hung up on Y, and I think Y and Z are closer friends than X is letting on.
Tia's Mr. Monday is just asking her to be exclusive, right? I'm not sure of the norms in NYC, but here it's sort of like this: one night stands aren't assumed to be exclusive; single dates with no sex aren't assumed to be exclusive; but, and here's where it gets weird, relationships where the twofriends end up sleeping together after a few weeks of intensified flirting are assumed to be exclusive.
If you found that as confusing as I did, it just means that everyone needs to get on the same page, and he's done that, maybe because they were sort of friends first. 'No, I'm not ready for a relationship now' is a perfectly fine response from Tia if that's what she wants.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:56 AM
20: Time-consuming isn't really a downside if it's a good relationship, though; it's more of a benefit. And if you mean monetarily expensive, an established relationship doesn't cost that much--it's the early stage dating (going out to dinner and such) that gets pricey.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:57 AM
One date isn't usually enough time to make a decision on exclusivity, but you had sex on the first date, right? Some people don't like to date people they know are sleeping with more than one person at a time. If that's the situation, the exclusivity thing is rushed but I don't think a completely inappropriate request. If you aren't sleeping with him, it does seem pretty soon.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:57 AM
I see that no one's put the letter into blank verse yet.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:58 AM
Cala, we were not friends first.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:05 AM
Ah, sorry. My eyes skipped right over the "not" preceding Sir Roger. Doesn't change any of my advice, though. The request isn't inappropriate on his end; I'm looking at it entirely from Tia's current milieu. Might lead to problems when Graham calls in a couple of weeks.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:06 AM
30: then it's a little fast, but maybe he just really like likes you, and wants to know if you're on the same page. Still, you haven't done anything that could hurt his feelings, so, "Not yet" is still an okay response. (And pretty much agreeing with apostropher: rebound relationships suck.)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:11 AM
(Making inappropriate assumptions about gender and probably other attributes):
A young Casanova named X
Found himself at a crossroads, perplexed:
"There's this lady named Y
Who's the apple of my eye;
But it's Z with whom I can have sex!"
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:12 AM
Sigh. Almost perfect, TMK. Almost.
Speaking of blank verse, you guys seen this? Pretty sweet.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:15 AM
The last two lines are problematic.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:16 AM
Yeah the 4th line suxx. But the 5th line scans correctly, does it not? Is your problem with its content?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:18 AM
Also, "perplexed" doesn't rhyme with "X" and "sex". And there's plenty out there to rhyme with "Y" -- why go with the cliche that contains too many feet?
The "with whom" is awkward, but otherwise line 5 seems ok to me.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:22 AM
36: Is there anything that Wolfson has written that makes you think you should listen to him on poetry?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:23 AM
"It's the lady named Y/for whom I pine and sigh"? Parallelism with the structure of the fifth line, but the 4th line doesn't flow so well; too much assonance, maybe. Or maybe the stress really goes on 'whom'.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:24 AM
Here are some options to play with.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:25 AM
But apostropher, exclusive doesn't necessarily mean long-term. I agree with your "no long-term commitments" caution, but I'm not sure it necessarily applies.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:25 AM
38: Hell yes.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:26 AM
36: Is there anything that Wolfson has written that makes you think you should listen to him on poetry?
But Weiner thought it was pimp tight!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:26 AM
What are you talking about, "perplexed" totally rhymes with "sex".
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:26 AM
Yeah, Drymala. Quit oppressing TMK with your bourgeois notions of rhyme.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:28 AM
No, it rhymes with "sexed" or "text" or next".
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:28 AM
Weiner, I hate to be a conservative about this, but I think one of the long understood rules the Mineshaft is that no one defends Wolfson. Fucker is young, hung, and has lots of run--he doesn't need the help.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:31 AM
"text" and "next" also rhyme with "sex".
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:32 AM
I can imagine plently of conversations, even on the first coupling, where a request for exclusivity would be understandable. I mean, at least you know what sort of relationship he's pursuing, right?
And then you can say no, or not yet, and he can get mad and fuck off, if he wants. All rather praiseworthily aboveboard, I'd say.
X's dilemma seems to have been perfectly described by Alameida, but I'd add the observation that worrying about how best to protect somebody else's feelings can be somewhat unfair. "I'm afraid of leading you down the primrose path" usually provokes anger rather than gratitude...
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:33 AM
47 - "lots of run"? I've never heard it phrased like that. What's that even mean?
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:38 AM
There once was a Kid from Modesto
Who rhymed by a strange manifesto;
"Not quite," said Drymala,
And Wolfson said, "Holla --
Let's polish line 4, and then, Presto!"
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:42 AM
47: Will "42/43: pwned!" do?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:42 AM
51: This is like trying to play pick-up basketball with Mutombo.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:43 AM
That is, damn you're good.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:45 AM
Nice.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:47 AM
Thanks.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:48 AM
Fucker is young, hung, and has lots of run
Two out of three ain't bad?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:52 AM
An angry young playwright from Texas
Criticized rhyming of x's:
"One word ends with a t
And one doesn't, you see!"
Then went back to discussing the sexes.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:52 AM
Fuck! That was even closer to perfection, dude. Almost genius.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:55 AM
Two out of three ain't bad?
Wolfson, we can talk all night,
But that ain't getting us nowhere.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:56 AM
50: "lots of run" is just a way of saying "lots of game," or that Wolfson's v. smart; also, I really don't like thinking of him as "full of cum."
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:57 AM
Are you really saying that "v. smart" and "lots of game" are correlated?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:01 AM
62: Depends on the game; the ones that get played here, sure.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:02 AM
Wait, I've got it with lines 3/4: "I pine and I sigh/for a lady named Y." Fewer syllables better here, I think.
Let's see if I can do line 2, though really I think "perplexed" is close enough:
A young Casanova named X
Said his love life was far too complex:
"I pine and I sigh
For a lady named Y
but it's Z with whom I can have sex!"
How's that?
(There would be some great possibilities if the "Ask the Mineshaft" columns were written by someone else.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:09 AM
The Mineshaft's own enfant terrible,
Wolfson's always ready to quibble.
Fucker's young, and he's hung,
And's got plenty of run;
Ideally I would be able to make some kind of basketball double-entendre here that ended with "dribble".
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:11 AM
Weiner, one too many feet in line 2.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:17 AM
Ben, between 57 and 486 on this thread...
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:17 AM
Modesto, the accents would be better if, instead of using "Wolfson's", you used "B-Wo's".
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:21 AM
57? And not 487?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:22 AM
66 -- I don't see that problem in 64: the strong syllables in line 2 are Love, Far, Plex -- so the feet are
Looks pretty regular to me.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:24 AM
Who am I to argue with Mutombo -- obviously, me. Really? I had "love" "far" and "plex" stressed, which gives me three feet and an extra unstressed syllable, but maybe the stresses don't go there.
We might be able to solve it by shifting 'said', though:
A young Casanova named X
Whose love life was far too complex
Said "I pine and I sigh
for a lady named Y
but it's Z with whom I can have sex!"
Which also gives the same number of syllables to 3 and 4.
Better?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:24 AM
68 -- that's good. but my line 2 in 65 would still not scan very well. Needs a stressed syllable between "B-Wo's" (or "Wolfson's") and "always".
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:25 AM
71 is way inferior to 64, which I liked just fine.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:26 AM
Lines 1 and 2 should have the same number of feet, ideally.
71 is good.
I would end 65 with "But this Wolf's bite is barely a nibble."
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:29 AM
Which isn't my best work, admittedly.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:29 AM
73 gets it exactly right.
"Ben's perpetually ready to quibble"?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:30 AM
"After a piss his cock doesn't dribble"?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:32 AM
Needs a stressed syllable between "B-Wo's" (or "Wolfson's") and "always".
No, no, no -- now we're back to square one with the different numbers of feet for lines 1 and 2. In my construction, "Wo's" is the accented syllable. Which is a little clumsy still, but much less clumsy than "Wolfson's".
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:33 AM
Lines 1 and 2 should have the same number of feet, ideally.
Lines 1 and 2 of 64 both have 3 feet. Line 2 has an extra unstressed syllable at the beginning, but I think this is a feature, not a bug. If you really wanted to make it go away, you could end line 1 with a colon or em dash, and drop "Said".
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:35 AM
77 would work better if it started "After pissing".
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:36 AM
True.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:37 AM
Will no one stand up for symmetry?
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:37 AM
BTW -- is anybody else hearing the Isley Brothers singing the title of this post?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:39 AM
I count three feet in line 1, though, unless we have different definitions of 'feet':
Three feet, it's just that the first is an iamb instead of an anapest.
(or, on preview, what 79 says, though if you do the colon you have to change "his" to "my." You could then start it off with "said" but that would presumably reintroduce the problem, unless you toss in a waste syllable like "oh" at the beginning of 2).
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:39 AM
How painful to be catching up with all of this at my short-term horrible office job where I cannot guffaw. Dudes after my own heart, y'all are.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:41 AM
69 - 57 on this thread, 486 on that one.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:42 AM
Namely:
Said a young Casanova named X:
"Oh, my love life is far too complex!
I pine and I sigh
for a lady named Y
but it's Z with whom I can have sex!"
Still asymmetry between 3 and 4, though, unless you put in another waste syllable. But on the whole? Symmetry isn't so great. It sounds better with the extra unstressed syllables in 64, IMO; they make the lines flow more naturally from the previous, similarly-metered lines.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:43 AM
It's true, I was misusing the term "feet".
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:43 AM
At the Mineshaft we take our cock jokes seriously; frequently putting them into verse.
This is splendid.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:44 AM
Weiner, you're crazy. Symmetry is wonderful, since it's words written on a page.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:45 AM
BTW Joe, in 58, is "playwright" correct or would "songwright" be more appropriate?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:46 AM
Has anyone else here read The Tunnel, which includes a few limericks every few pages or so throughout its massive length, in reference to an ongoing search by two History profs for The Perfect Dirty Limerick?
[The novel is only enjoyable if you enjoy feeling visceral moral repulsion (not due to the limericks, which are, though unbelievably dirty, relatively harmless), so don't expect a non-stop laff riot.]
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:46 AM
"Playwright" works.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:47 AM
Hey here is a very nice explanation of the form, by David:
You will find, if you read all the best,
That the limerick's anapest-stressed:
Diddy-dee diddy-dum
Is its rhythm and, Chum,
This one's anapest-blessed like the rest.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:49 AM
btw Joe, thanks for the rhymefinder, which contributed "complex."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:51 AM
I stand honorably pwned.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:53 AM
I'm lacking in the limericking skills. Off topic, I ask: What is wrong with Glenn Reynolds?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:53 AM
Although! If you read David's other limericks, when he starts out with an iamb in line 1 instead of an anapest, he follows through symmetrically with an iamb in line 2.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:59 AM
93 -- unfortunately "dramaturge" does not fit.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 10:03 AM
Said X to the love-sagely Tia
Who writes at the blog of the Shi'a:
"I love Y, but Z
Would have sex with me,
Do I deserve gonorrhea?"
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 10:04 AM
Cried our young Casanova called X:
'Oh, my love life is far too complex!
I pine and I sigh,
For the love of Miss Y,
While Miss Z demands mind-blowing sex.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 10:07 AM
98: Not always.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 10:08 AM
This questions is formatted like a pome
Yay, another person who says "pome"! I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 10:08 AM
A couple I know used to date
And still hunger for sex that was great
Though the pair are estranged
People's tastes never change
Though one gets some fresh meat on one's plate
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 10:14 AM
97: Glenn Reynolds, a faux-libertarian,
Is so tiresome that I'd say there's nary an
idea in his thinking
worth quoting or linking;
he's just a dull, whining contrarian.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 10:17 AM
Bravo!
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 10:19 AM
Sprung rhythm, slant rhyme, doggerel. There ain't no Andrew Marvell here. Next door down maybe.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 10:30 AM
Come on, Emerson. Limerick contests are *by definition* doggerel-and-pony shows. What, you want sincere, flowing, expressive verse?
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 10:33 AM
The gang at a blog where Chopper goes
Let out poesy in a hundred flows
He declared strong and hearty
"If I'd known of this party
My dick I would bury, deep in the mash potatoes!"
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 10:35 AM
Last line is off.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 10:36 AM
106 gets it exactly right
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 10:38 AM
May I suggest "I'd stick my dick in mashed potatoes."?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 10:39 AM
I'm really busy today, but if I had time, I'd like to outsource the writing of a limerick that rhymes Roger with lodge 'er (and dodger?) and/or Bacon with stake in.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 10:42 AM
I mean, if I had time I'd like to write it, but instead I'm outsourcing.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 10:42 AM
112: Wait, silvana has a secret weiner, too?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 10:47 AM
A bloke we'll call Sir Roger Bacon
Preferred not to be soon awaken;
"Let's put" in a cab
This girl who is fab
And look at the sex he's forsaken.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 10:48 AM
Remember, I suck at scansion!
Our hero, a would-be Don Juan,
Wanted Y, but when he'd gone wooin',
Found not she at all,
But Z came to his call:
But could this mean trouble strong brewin'?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 10:54 AM
There once was a man hight R. Bacon
Who as a matter of rule put no stake in
His partner's climaxing
Or subsidized taxiing
And that's why, despite being named "Bacon", he won't be porking Tia again.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 10:58 AM
"Porking," Wolfson? Ick.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:04 AM
A cad known as Bacon (Sir Roger)
Screwed Tia but then wouldn't lodge her
Sent her home on the train
Through the cold and the rain
To Brooklyn, the home of the Dodger(s).
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:05 AM
"Porking," Wolfson? Ick.
Don't blame me; the material works itself. I am merely a conduit.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:07 AM
LB wins the Roger Bacon-related subthread.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:13 AM
Are you kidding? She totally fudged the fifth line!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:15 AM
But she did it in a way creative and appealing way doncha see.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:17 AM
Porking," Wolfson? Ick.
Bitch implied otherwise.
Posted by washerdeyer | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:17 AM
Also, should "Roger" be used as a verb?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:18 AM
subsidized taxiing
I temporarily read this as "subsidized taxing," and was therefore trying to figure out both what this would be and what it has to do with anything. Actually, I know what a tax subsidy is, so maybe it's just the process of using those.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:19 AM
Also: I dug "climaxing/ taxiing" -- that was a similarly creative and appealing fudge.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:20 AM
Re 126: "shouldn't"
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:21 AM
But she did it in a way creative and appealing way doncha see.
No, I did it in a creative and appealing, albeit slightly unoriginal, way. She did it in the standard "oops it doesn't quite work" way.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:21 AM
'Wooin' and 'Juan' don't rhyme.
There once was a cad -- call him Roger
Worried more about sleep than his todger,
Which after that tryst,
Should be given a twist,
Bedding Tia, and refusing to lodge'er.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:22 AM
Oh: and I misread "subsidized" as "subsequent".
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:22 AM
Isn't that basically the way it was done in the "absterwythe (sic?)/whist" lymeric you quoted a while back.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:22 AM
131 -- They do if you're Byron, don't they? I'm pretty sure the poem is Don Joo-ahn, not Don Wan.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:24 AM
Isn't that basically the way it was done in the "absterwythe (sic?)/whist" lymeric you quoted a while back.
Aberystwyth, and yes. As for "Juan/wooin'" (and why not mention "brewin'"?), LB has the right of it.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:26 AM
130 -- I don't understand. Had you somewhere previously made the "Dodger(s)" joke, that I am missing it? Or what are you saying you did that was creative and appalling, if slightly unoriginal?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:28 AM
Completely abandoning scansion in his last line?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:29 AM
The limerick to which w/d refers (I see the archiving didn't quite format things right, hmmm).
136: I mean that the way LB fudged is a pretty standard way, and that the way I fudged was bold, interesting, and compellingly personal, even if it's been done before.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:30 AM
As for "Juan/wooin'" (and why not mention "brewin'"?)
No need to mention the obvious. I liked the look of the double rhyme scheme, but even if you say Joo-ahn, you still don't say woo-an.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:31 AM
We see Chopper adopt a similar technique here.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:31 AM
B-but you didtn' abandon scansion in your last line! you had a nice last line of iamb-anapest-anapest, with a funny (s) at the end of it! A perfect limerick says I. And as for abandoning scansion, reckon I did it long before young B-Wo, in 65. (Mebbe that's what he meant by "unoriginal" -- it was hardly original when I did it, or FTM when Tom Lehrer did it.)
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:33 AM
But I mis(phonetically)spelled Juan. I really have heard it pretty close to Jooin ('wooin') or Jewin ('brewin').
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:33 AM
I pronounce the Byronic "Juan" basically as "jewin'".
Also, my way has a distinguished pedigree! Witness the Rev. Patrick Brontë:
To novels and plays not inclined,
Nor aught that could sully her mind,
Temptations may shower
Unmoved as a tower
She quences the fiery arrows.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:33 AM
Tom Lehrer is a transsexual?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:33 AM
141, it's not the abandomnent of scansion, it's the abandonment of any pretense whatsoever to being a proper line in a limerick. You did do it in 65, but I'm afraid I have to say that it only works when done well.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:36 AM
Jooin ('wooin') or Jewin ('brewin').
Are you saying you pronounce these differently?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:36 AM
144: FTM = "for that matter"
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:40 AM
It was only a year and a half ago,
In a city we'll call C,
That X dated there one whom we'll call Y,
Who's friends with one we'll call Z.
And this person X lived with no other thought
than to continue to love Y and not Z.
Then Y broke it off when X moved away
From this city we call C,
But X loved with a love that was more than love,
Just not for the one we call Z.
With a love that the date-like situations of recent
Failed to turn towards Z.
And this was the reason not long ago,
In this city we call C,
That an e-mail came out of an account by night
Pleading, "What should I do about Z?";
So that this high-flown blogger thought
And said, "This applies to me!
Should I settle up in exclusivity
With one who's to me like Z?"
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:44 AM
Byron rhymes "Juan" with "new one," "new" stressed.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:48 AM
Ah, sweet, eb.
I do like 131, especially "todger."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:50 AM
Quoth the Raven, "Fuck off."
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 11:56 AM
151 wasn't directed at anyone. But it's funny if the Raven gets bored of quothing nevermore.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 12:00 PM
Goody, I can stop crying my eyes out.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 12:01 PM
A long thread of poesy brung,
I laughed 'til I coughed up a lung.
Though Tia's advice
Was awfully nice
The word that stuck with me was 'hung.'
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 12:02 PM
Quoth the raven: you will die alone.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 12:06 PM
Quoth the Simpsons: eat my shorts.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 12:09 PM
146: No, exactly the same.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 12:09 PM
Also, what alameida said - as long as the situation described is as it's described, and none of this has to do with trying to worm one's way back onto another's radar, etc., then I don't think X has done anything wrong. However, what are the odds of that? If a romantic triangle were ever that honest and innocent, the very Earth would be rent in two to swallow them all up and hide them from the eyes of a tarnished and jealous world.
As for Monday guy, a gentle 'not quite yet' is probably in order.
And there are lots of good relationships. I'm in one. My parents are in one. My sister is in one. But saying that probably doesn't make it better for anyone who thinks otherwise, so I'll just stop.
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 12:13 PM
the very Earth would be rent in two to swallow them all up and hide them from the eyes of a tarnished and jealous world
Dude, even the winged seraphs of heaven are coveting X, Y, and Z.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 12:15 PM
Some of my best friends are in relationships.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 12:16 PM
Dude, even the winged seraphs of heaven are coveting X, Y, and Z.
Is this because they're so innocent and it's probably all as described? Or is it because they're all just wicked hot?
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 12:17 PM
6:2 That the sons of God saw the X, Y, Z that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 12:20 PM
'Cos we love you, Mister Monday!
Mister Monday, make me come again please
Here I am on my knees begging if you please
And the night you don't come my way, Oh
I pray and pray for each day
Cos we love you, Mister Monday!
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 12:27 PM
Sorry, 2nd line s/b:
Here I am ATM, begging if you please
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 12:30 PM
So what bugged Tia the most --
that she didn't get fare from her host?
Or was it an orgasm
she didn't feel spasm
that made her slam his ass in a post?
Posted by Adam Ash | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 12:32 PM
that made her slam his ass in a post
As opposed to slamming a post in his ass, one presumes.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 12:33 PM
He's a real Monday man,
Living in his Monday land,
Making all his Monday plans
For him and Tiiiiiiiiiia....
Monday man, don't worry [about exclusivity],
Take your time, don't hurry [the relationship],
Save it all, til somebody else lends you a hand [ATM]....
Hasn't got a point of view,
Knows not where he's going to,
Isn't he a bit like Ben and Wiener.....
Monday man, please listen [to the Unfoggedtariat],
You don't know, what your missin' [in Tia's boudoir],
Monday man, the world [of good sex] is at your command...
He's a real Monday man,
Living in his Monday land,
Making all his Monday plans
For him and Tiiiiiiiiiia.
Making all his Monday plans
For him and Tiiiiiiiiiia.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:01 PM
Très bien!
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:05 PM
Have not read thread.
X is a little bit jerky, but--unless Alameida's right and there are some unarticulated motives going on there--not terribly jerky. It's kind of crappy to ask out someone who likes you, and who you are not interested in, just b/c you're hung up on someone else. It's less crappy to *agree* to go out if someone asks, but in my book, asking signals interest. If I found out someone had asked me out just because I was a warm body, I'd be pissed.
Re. Tia's situation: my advice is do NOT agree to be "exclusive" with someone you have dated once. That's insane. If he likes you and wants you to like him, his job is to keep dating for a while and see if a relationship develops--not to impose a relationship on you from the outset. That just sounds creepy and controlling to me. Managing someone else's insecurity is not your job. He sounds like a jerk to me.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 7:45 PM
Thanks, Cala!
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:35 PM
Thanks, Happy Fun Kitty!
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:35 PM
169: But it's not about insecurity, it's just about the kind of relationship Mr. Monday is willing to have. I don't think there's necessarily any implication of serious commitment involved in this.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:37 PM
Aaooowwweee. Cute kitty.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 8:39 PM
B in 169 wrote, It's kind of crappy to ask out someone who likes you, and who you are not interested in, just b/c you're hung up on someone else.
That's what I was going to say, only B says it better than I could. I sort of think that X sucks. Even though the initial description says that "X asks Z on
a couple of date-like situations in part to see if something
might develop (and in part to avoid sitting at home thinking
about Y)," I had a strong feeling that the latter motive was far more prominent than the part about wanting to see if aomething might develop. In short, it seemed to me that X was leading Z on, and that sucks.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 06-15-06 9:56 PM
167: When I was a kid, one of my nicknames was "goo," and my parents made up songs about me to the tune of pop songs. One of them was to the tune of "Nowhere Man" and it went, "She's a little goo goo goo/Don't know what to do do do/'Cause she's just too too too too/Hard to handle sometimes." Now you've got that in my head.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 7:15 AM
Now you've got that in my head.
My work here is done.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 7:31 AM
We may be related. My mother used to sing, to the tune of Yellow Submarine, "We all live in a house with [Dr. Oops], a house with [Dr. Oops], a house with [Dr. Oops]. We all live in a house with [Dr. Oops] and she's nice enough, to live there too." (It doesn't scan particularly well at the end.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 7:31 AM
They also sang a song about the Richard Scary character Lowly Worm to the tune of "Lonely Girl." It went, "Hey there, Lowly Worm, Lowly Worm/Don't you know this little goo loves you?/Hey there, Lowly Worm, Lowly Worm/Don't you know you have a friend in goo?"
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 7:34 AM
Oh man, my dad, who is a great singer and who I believe has latent compositional talent, used to make up songs in Arabic about us various kids, with rhyming and everything. I believe mine had something about my being like both a horse and a cauliflower, because both of those words rhyme with "silvana."
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-16-06 3:58 PM
Probably nobody is reading at this point, but I was wondering whether we could have--in addition to Ask the Mineshaft Love and Personal Life edition, a more work-based edition. Ask the Mineshaft Career Edition.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:01 AM
Actually, I have a career question in my mailbox I've yet to answer.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06-19-06 8:02 AM