This might be better if you post it a third time.
The first comment was better in the first thread.
Are we supposed to make fun of this guy?
You can date him if you want, urple. But only if you're hot and under 31. Actually, your sense of home economy might disqualify you, so yeah, you'd better make fun of him. That's really the only other option.
Solitude is starting to seem like a noble ideal.
Stay krypton, Ponyboy. Stay krypton.
I'm imagining these as Charlie Sheen's video-dating-service monologues, on a VHS tape made in 1986.
9: I'm certain "Men at Work"'was later than 1986...
a bad personality is better than none at all
I just love "I'm so self-amusing" way too much.
Also, it's lots longer. Click through, you guys.
When one puts wishes out into the Universe, it is good to be as specific as possible.
For some reason, the part that bothers me the most is
know that gifts are little treats and rewards
16: Because you have a 'never-ending desire to be pampered'?
Surely this thing is a joke? Maybe?
Indeed. Only once I saw the phrase isolated like that in the comment did I realize how much it sounds like a dog! The transactional nature of it was what first rubbed me the wrong way. Not that you don't find that attitude a lot, but it is just so baldly stated there.
Surely this thing is a joke? Maybe?
Could be. But having done some online dating in my time, I wouldn't assume so.
If a woman isn't labeled with a Sell By date, is there any other way to tell if she's expired? Does she, like, start to give off a funny smell or change color or something?
a woman is past her prime if she is past 31.
or 29
or 23
or 97
i think there's a fair amount of experimental / performance art-ish profiles on okcupid. since it's free. like this could be a guy with a pet theory of "women want a guy who treats them like shit" and so he's crafted this profile to see whether it gets hits to prove his point. still probably an asshole, of course.
29: if you believe, per the seduction strategy forums, that women respond to men who are assholes, and you therefore act like an asshole to women, I think it's been well established that you are, in fact, an asshole.
cf. a bunch of reality quality archives I'm too lazy to google. rtf[ citation needed].
Probably because I'm btock style I can't stop laughing at this one.
him: have you found some one to love yet
me: ummm im still looking i guess...
him: if you find him would you swallow his nut everynight cuz i could b that guy
Normally I prefer mercy to justice, but in this case I hope he gets the girlfriend he deserves.
It would've been simpler and quicker if he'd just written 'Man seeks slave'. He'd probably get more takers that way anyways.
max
['Oily charm!']
If you're reasonably tall (5'6"
It goes downhill from here for me, but it starts well.
Wouldn't it be nice to think that this ad was performance art, and he wasn't actually expecting any responses?
Is there really much performance art these days?
39: There's more of it the closer you get to Baltimore.
It's performance art, and he's expecting lots of responses. It heightens the contradictions in the transactional nature of romance under late capitalism.
He is just filling a niche. Sure, it is the asshole niche.
But, he will find someone who likes that description/attitude.
This thread is where we need Tia back or other veterans of the slightly off the mainstream online profile world.
He is just filling a niche. Sure, it is the asshole niche.
Can an asshole fill its own niche?
43: Yes, but they usually usually stop at 10. For the children.
Talking about filling assholes reminds me of Cramsie, the hooker from Party Down.
45: It takes a lot of dedication and training, but yes.
47: she wasn't a hooker, geez. She was a porn star who specialized in anal. Also, dragons are fantasy, not hard sci-fi.
I've never really looked through the online personals except when one is linked here. I would think that 90 percent of them are essentially the same:
"I am perfectly normal. Just like everyone else. Please date me."
"Self-amusing" s/b "self-abusing".
Hasnt someone in academia studied what kind of profiles get ignored?
Somewhat related, I enjoyed the end of this article about scientific studies: http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/bitchslap/bitchslap26.html
(via Bitch)
I would think that 90 percent of them are essentially the same:
"I am perfectly normal. Just like everyone else. Please date me."
Change 90 to 98. Except on OKCupid, actually, where there's a fair amount of "we are seeking a third to play D&D and possibly have fetish sex."
||
Julie Taymor already attached to the broadway adaptation!
|>
I think there is some deliberate irony in that profile, but that's not the same as him being aware of how horrible it all is.
53:
Wow. I don't read Slate unless drawn by linkage, and it's McSweeny's, so I assumed that this was a very dry parody for most of the essay. Nope.
Then I find myself googling Berring and read his response to criticisms of the original piece, in which he shrugs off criticism of the sexist presumptions of the research (on the possibilties of increased hand-grip strength for women during ovulation as a rape prevention tool) as the slings and arrows of public intellectualhood. Instead he stages a spirited, if entirely unconvincing, defense of Evolutionary Psychology. Awesome.
I share Jimmy Pongo's emotions. When did McSweeney's start publishing things that aren't dry parodies?
Oh, also agreed about bit at the end of Schorn's piece. Testicular vulnerability is woefully understudied.
The McSweeney's author's gambit of pronouncing the evolutionary just-so story puzzling by reference to her own evolutionary just-so story doesn't work, but it's probably unfair to criticize her, as her piece is undoubtedly far less stupid than the Slate piece, which I don't intend to read, and may well be less stupid than the research, which I also don't particularly care about.
The end of her piece was interesting, but I'm actually not sure male response to images/stimuli related to genital damage is understudied. I mean, wasn't Freud (for instance) particularly interested in castration anxiety? I couldn't figure out how to google up a study, but I bet they've been done. Meanwhile, this exists.
I think it works okay. What I understood her point to be is that just-so-stories that are kind of sexy and appealing to male researchers get all sorts of investigation: "Ooh, look, rape is an evolved strategy, and women have these superpowers that let them avoid it if they really want to (which implies that where the superpowers don't kick in, whatever's going on isn't 'rape' by evolutionary standards)." A hardhitting investigation of how the vulnerability of the male genitalia to attack makes sense from an evolutionary point of view isn't titillating the same way, and doesn't get similar investigation.
51, 54 I would think that 90 percent of them are essentially the same:
"I am perfectly normal. Just like everyone else. Please date me."
This okcupid statistical thingy claims that actually almost everyone says they are not normal. (it's in the little dropdown extendo part, not the main article:
Which describes you better, normal or weird? might be fine to ask, but doing so is of little value because almost everyone has the same answer. 79% of people think they are weird. Ironists "rejoice".
Just like that one movie, where the bratty high schooler is mortally offended at being called average.
I don't read her as presenting her own just-so story, so much as questioning the logical presumptions of the original one (and so far as I can reason, she's not wrong; a trait that makes conception less likely would seem to be at an evolutionary disadvantage).
On castration anxiety, I was being glib, and I'm sure you're right that there are studies of one kind or another out there. But fear of castration is rather different than fear of the power of intact testes to inflict pain.
A hardhitting investigation of how the vulnerability of the male genitalia to attack makes sense from an evolutionary point of view isn't titillating the same way, and doesn't get similar investigation.
I know what you're saying, and there's definitely a huge problem of playing to the crowd in ev psych, particularly gender-based ev psych, but again, I'm pretty sure there's actually been a ton of research into the evolutionary origins of external male genitalia; it just hasn't been in psych departments.
I don't read her as presenting her own just-so story, so much as questioning the logical presumptions of the original one (and so far as I can reason, she's not wrong; a trait that makes conception less likely would seem to be at an evolutionary disadvantage).
Unless that trait made it more likely that offspring would survive to sexual maturity.
"I am perfectly normal. Just like everyone else. Please date me."
Change 90 to 98. Except on OKCupid, actually, where there's a fair amount of "we are seeking a third to play D&D and possibly have fetish sex."
Very soon "we are seeking a third to play D&D and maybe have fetish sex" will be complete absorbed into "perfectly normal." This fact has its pros and cons.
Well, "a third to play D&D and maybe have fetish sex" does sound like a perfectly lovely evening, for people who like D&D.
Unless that trait made it more likely that offspring would survive to sexual maturity.
Right, but that would be a general advantage to avoiding rape, rather than one that only manifested during ovulation.
"I am perfectly normal like going out on the town some nights, but I can also appreciate a good dive bar. Just like Unlike everyone else. Please date me."
Oh no! I am a few months away from expiring!
Which describes you better, normal or weird? might be fine to ask, but doing so is of little value because almost everyone has the same answer. 79% of people think they are weird.
This is entirely to be expected. Almost everybody says, "I am not a number, I am a free man." They also drive a Ford Focus, eat the same pizza topping every week and wear this year's fashionable colour. It requires far less mental gymnastics than voting Republican when you're unemployed.
72: They also do at least one thing that is weird. Every one of them is correct when they say they are not a number.
69: not necessarily, depending on what advantage it conferred. But the point is, before we do this all day, playing the "what's the most parsimonious evolutionary explanation" game is exactly what's problematic about ev psych, as there are an almost unlimited number of ways to construct an evolutionary justification for a given behavior.
Very soon "we are seeking a third to play D&D and maybe have fetish sex" will be complete absorbed into "perfectly normal."
Perhaps surprisingly, they still have a long way to go. (Maybe a different story if the viewer allowed queries with ampersands.)
Almost everybody says, "I am not a number, I am a free man."
Personally, I like all types of music.
Very soon "we are seeking a third to play D&D and maybe have fetish sex" will be complete absorbed into "perfectly normal."
You mean, dragons will be absorbed into hard scifi, IYKWIMAITYD.
1, 71: To survive I have only a sleeping bag, a suitcase full of clothes, some basic toiletries, a laptop (with wifi!), and a snow shovel. And a microwave, and an egg a woman that expires on Monday.
dragons will be absorbed into hard scifi
81 - I believe you mean "scenes of teenybopper elf sex and coke-snorting pile one atop the other until the book becomes to fantasy literature what the films of Larry Clark are to cinema".
I guess to be fair one should take a step back and note that "I AM SO NORMAL" plays a specific role in gay personal ads. (Probably obvious so I won't belabor it.) Doesn't make insistent normality any more attractive to me, but it does make it something I should be a bit less haughty about.
Probably obvious so I won't belabor it.
It probably should be, but isn't. Is that code for 'not obviously gay to the casual observer', or something else?
I have always assumed that I am completely and perfectly normal and that it's everyone else who is weird.
87: Is that working out OK? I'd like to try it.
"The weirdest thing about me is how normal my shoes and posture are."
I always figure that I'm well within the normal range.
What's normal, anyway? It's not that I don't think I'm normal, but if I were attempting to date on the internet I'd be trying to convey that most people would probably find spending time with me somewhere between dull and irritating.
I suppose I'd also want to get across that there are some people, however few, who do actually enjoy my company. But the main effort would be to convey that most readers should keep scrolling by.
if I were attempting to date on the internet I'd be trying to convey that most people would probably find spending time with me somewhere between dull and irritating
Just the thought of coming up with an online dating profile fills me with horror.
92, 93: Assuming a word count limit, the most honest personal ad I could write would be something like "Me: difficult. You: tolerant."
Maybe that was what the guy in the original post was going for.
92, 93: I think slolernr hit exactly the note you are looking for. Although I think I recall neb saying he tried to put out exactly that notice somewhere and it got rejected.
I like to think that I'm real-world difficult, not Internet-Ayn Rand fan libertarian fanfiction connoisseur jackass difficult.*
* Please, God, let there be a difference.
A friend once wrote a personal ad that was essentially "Curmudgeon, son of a bitch. Don't write, don't call." Predictably, he got replies.
Slol's ad is still the best ever.
This okcupid statistical thingy claims that actually almost everyone says they are not normal
Perhaps Blume in 70 is a good example of what I was trying to say.
90 percent of people label themselves as unique and different while describing the exact same factual things.
Just like all of your friends in college or high school who were claiming to be non-conformists while they played the role with perfect mimicry.
I'm actually not sure male response to images/stimuli related to genital damage is understudied
Indeed, both Youtube and America's Funniest Videos would have only a tiny fraction of their current content were it not for injury to male genitals.
Just the thought of coming up with an online dating profile fills me with horror.
That's why I enjoy placing a CL ad more than writing other profiles. They only last a week, so if I feel like inviting distressing pieces of humanity into my inbox, I free-associate something for a paragraph or two on CL and see what I get. Generally nothing encouraging, because 98% of all people are "normal."
This last round I'm getting more photographers than usual, but when I find their portfolios online, they are all utterly trite shots of half-naked women. I don't mind the half-naked part, but I can't believe how boring the pictures are.
I'll add (defensively) that yes, I have also tried the other sites and what I've found is that the pool of people is exactly the same on all of them. So no suggesting that I switch over to some other brand of online dating.
Just the thought of coming up with an online dating profile fills me with horror.
Unfogged is here to help! We can write it for you!
"Jesus: I'm merciful, not just."
Just like all of your friends in college or high school who were claiming to be non-conformists while they played the role with perfect mimicry all wore the same Corrosion of Conformity t-shirt.
"You're looking at your calendar, I'm looking at my watch."
This last round I'm getting more photographers than usual, but when I find their portfolios online, they are all utterly trite shots of half-naked women. I don't mind the half-naked part, but I can't believe how boring the pictures are.
Photography, because of the low barriers to entry, seems particularly Sturgeon's law-y.
"Jesus: I'm merciful, not just."
"Children are innocent and prefer justice; while we are guilty and prefer mercy."
Although I think I recall neb saying he tried to put out exactly that notice somewhere and it got rejected.
On Craigslist.
102: In my uncharitable moments this is my impression of the world's biggest junior high school Manhattan.
Hey, where'd the out-of-nowhere Manhattan-bashing come from? What'd we ever do to you?
"I am perfectly normal like going out on the town some nights, but I can also appreciate a good dive bar. Just like Unlike everyone else. Please date me." (Formatting trashed, I admit it.)
I once put up an ad on Craigslist saying I hated dive bars, was looking for some games, and a partner in abiding by the law. Some guy emailed me and said he appreciated it. Lately I've been thinking of incorporating an OKCupid Catechism into my profile:
Of what scene are you tired?
The bar.
Of what had you had enough, and in what else are you consequently not interested?
Drama; games.
What two items interest you in equal measure, but above all others?
Working hard; playing hard.
Is there a typical Friday night?
No.
If there were, what would you be doing on it?
Either going out or staying in with a movie and some wine.
What are you looking for in crime?
A partner.
What do you not like to write?
These things.
&c.
Not too many photographers successfully jump into the Sally Mann world of nude photography by taking nude pictures of their own children, their aging husband, or dead bodies rotting.
Instead, it is filled with the same unoriginal naked women pictures. I knew a couple of actual professional photographer (as in surviving selling real images) who decided to try fine art nude photography. They quickly got out of it.
I'll add (defensively) that yes, I have also tried the other sites and what I've found is that the pool of people is exactly the same on all of them. So no suggesting that I switch over to some other brand of online dating
Sounds like it's time to start blogging again!
114: As a means of attracting Flann O'Brien fans, it might work.
If I'd come across 114, I would have totally tried to get nosflow to go on a date with me.
113: My love/hate relationship with Manhattan, let me show it to you non sequiturously.
I know. It is just that my underlying complaint about answers to online ads stays the same: that people appear to be utterly unaware. In what could be at best an attempt to woo me and at worst should be a perfectly serviceable direct reply, I get a very distressing number of emails that show no self-awareness at all. They start off with scolding me, or bashing women, or by telling me that I'll never be a priority in their life, or by utter lack of originality. Since I've seen a lot of it, perhaps I'm sensitized. Don't you know that your pictures are completely trite? If you know that, why did you choose to display them so prominently? If you don't know that, how are you so ignorant of your field? I am only an ignorant engineer, and I can tell those shots are painfully cliche.
116: Yeah, I've been thinking that. When I get my new laptop, I'm likely to start up a new personal blog. That's not for a few weeks yet.
"Jesus: I'm merciful, not just."
"Who are you looking for? Why do you weep? Couldn't you stay awake? Why have you forsaken me?"
Not that I expect it to lead to getting dates. It was great for meeting people, but not dating, and I don't want to write that stuff publicly anymore.
120:
I would like to see all marriages start out where one person has disdain for the other's profession.
But, I am selfish that way.
114: "Why is this personal ad different from all other personal ads?"
Don't you know that your pictures are completely trite? If you know that, why did you choose to display them so prominently?
Because you enjoyed taking them, despite their triteness? It doesn't seem that odd to me to feel that some form of art or craft is important to you, despite the fact that you're not particularly good at it. There's a whole lot of lousy guitar players out there who still love noodling around.
Sure, but (from a minute or two of searching on the internet) it appears as if people have crafted an identity about their middling efforts, rather than saying, 'hey, I'm generally neat person who also plays guitars when I get the chance." The problem is that what I get from them (and from searching their names or handles) is more along the lines of 'this guitar playing is WHAT I AM" and then I go look and it is dull and derivative.
If it is what you are, then I would expect that you'd put enough time into it to have broken through cliche.
Wow, 128 has some gems in it.
I mean, I enjoy my camera and am even suckered enough to take the occasional shot of a poppy in my front yard. But I never show that to anyone, on the grounds that there is absolutely nothing new about my picture of a poppy.
Re 131
I don't think newness or originality need be the main thing. As LB says a lot of people do things because they enjoy doing them, and just because they put their photos on flickr or share their hobbies with friends that doesn't mean they think their stuff is great art or deeply original or even any good at all.
Although the above probably doesn't apply to people emailing them to strangers on CL.
I suppose I can see disapproving of people for being vain about work that's actually dull. But generally, I approve of people getting involved in making and doing stuff and caring about it, even when they suck. The alternative seems to be watching a lot of TV, because at least it's not pretentious of you.
What's the Chesterton line? "Anything worth doing is worth doing badly"?
"Just like all of your friends in college or high school who were claiming to be non-conformists while they played the role with perfect mimicry all wore the same Corrosion of Conformity t-shirt."
That is a sweet t-shirt though.
people emailing them to strangers on CL
Or, you know, setting up vanity websites about them with no hint of awareness that it is entirely derivative work and referring people to that website.
I know, LB. I super support and admire craftiness and hope people find lots of satisfaction in it. It isn't the vain-ness, it is what I said before. The complete lack of self-awareness. Full props to anyone who makes a thing, but afterwards that thing should be given some perspective in one's identity. If it is a remarkable thing, then it is worth portraying yourself as a thing-maker. If it is a completely mediocre thing, then perhaps you might want to say that you are generally pleasant and on-time, and also have a few hobbies.
That's pretty harsh. Although it depends how vain the self promotion is. If your view is that only people who are really great at stuff should ever share it, i) that's fucked and ii) who exactly decides what's great anyway?
114: As a means of attracting Flann O'Brien fans, it might work.
Not a populous demographic, but home to the most desirable people.
136:
Under this theory, I would be really disappointed if I found out that you CANNOT catch the frisbee!
"I suppose I can see disapproving of people for being vain about work that's actually dull. But generally, I approve of people getting involved in making and doing stuff and caring about it, even when they suck. The alternative seems to be watching a lot of TV, because at least it's not pretentious of you."
I totally agree.
There does seem to be a problem with amateurism in the dating context:
"Be desireless. Be excellent. Be gone."
No, if the stuff is medium (and I count my efforts here), then you share it with your friends who care about it because it has all sorts of you in it. The point is the person, and that's what should be presented in the response to the online ad.
Secondly, I don't necessarily know when stuff is great, but I know when it is utterly trite.
I think that you are missing the stunning gap between what gets sent to me and impressiveness. The size of that gap is what makes me yearn for some hint of self-awareness in online dating.
143:
Isnt that what online dating is all about?
"I am a reasonably attractive person." = "I need dental work."
Heh. I've gotten annoyed myself at inflated self assessment in photography, but I still think it's good that people put it out there, on the whole.
Sure. But would you rather they say 'I am a photographer!!!', or 'I am smart and good-natured and like to take pictures in my free time.'
I think they should put it out there too. But if their work is regular (and most work is), they should offer a prospective date their personality, not their work.
I could totally write Jesus's online dating profile.
I am with Megan here. Self-awareness is important. It's totally different to say "I like to tool around with a camera because it's fun" vs selling your awesomeness with a lens. The latter is obnoxious, even on the rare occasion that it's justified.
Well sure, hence the comments about vanity. But the general do not share unless it is teh awesomes rule? No.
Of course describing oneself as 'a photographer/poet/musician' often is insufferably pretentious.
I guess I kind of like vain people, as long as they're not dull about it. Someone who's showing off is at least putting themselves out to entertain.
I think I just don't like annoying people, and this could go either way, but I'm picturing long lines of people doing it annoyingly.
But I do like people who aren't annoying.
But the general do not share unless it is teh awesomes rule?
Good thing that's not what I said. Oh wait, I did, in 131. I would share stuff I made with people who care about me. But they only care about my entirely standard scarves because they already care about me. They're interested in my process and my time, not the end results so much.
If I were trying to entice people with my knitting without realizing that my knitting is entirely mediocre, it points to a lack of self-awareness.
Of course self-awareness is important.
But nattar spelled it out correctly.
Is the person claiming to be a fabulous photographer? Or "here is some of my work; I think it is ok."
If I tell you that I am smoking hot, you are going to be disappointed when you see me.
But, just bc I say that I swim regularly doesnt mean that I think I am winning the Olympics.
147: If I were in the market, I'd probably let you. Have we done a write-other-commenters'-online-dating-profiles game? It might be fun and/or blow up the blog.
Suddenly, I'm worrying about the cake/knitting blogging. I should blog less.
On the other hand, I suppose I'm not expecting any of you to date me.
158: Perhaps we could all adopt new pseudonyms for the day any write dating profiles for each other.
Is the person claiming to be a fabulous photographer? Or "here is some of my work; I think it is ok."
Claiming the first or I wouldn't object; you would not believe how much that happens and how poorly substantiated it is.
114:
I am very tempted to plagiarise this if I ever get around to putting up a dating profile. (The potential constituency would be much larger here in Ireland.)
But I want to see your cakes and knitting projects, LB. And I want to show you my garden. But that's because we're vested in each other, not because my tomatoes are any different from all the other tomatoes.
But when you're writing a profile, you're trying to show why you're neat. You're neat because of how you occupy yourself. The thing is spending time. Not because you've accumulated various by-products. The by-products are things that people who like you will humor you by smiling at. I wouldn't put my songs on a profile, but I'd say it was a hobby I enjoyed. I'd happily show them to someone who asked, and I'm happy to foist them on you guys. But they're not, like, actual songs.
Heebie understands. But so many of the men who write me do not.
114, 162: Additional material--
On what do you enjoy long walks?
The beach.
In which two garments are you equally comfortable?
Jeans and an evening gown.
158: I found that awkward as soon as I wrote it. You are not in the market.
Yes, I think this place has touched on writing another's dating profile -- someone did something linking to a handful of a commenter's past posts. I recall that Knecht was involved.
It would probably blow up the blog.
There were a whole bunch of Ogged-dating posts back in the day, including some semi-serious attempts to help him write a profile.
Have we done a write-other-commenters'-online-dating-profiles game
Selfishly I'd be curious what anybody would write for me:
Earnest, friendly, smart, dull, dresses badly. Deeply introverted, risk averse, a trifle tightly wound, and reluctant to try new experiences.
Oh, and hyper-responsible, but disorganized and prone to troubling amounts of clutter.
I occasionally wonder what the appropriate pitch would be.
Has thoughts about music, and will share.
Reticence and humility usually lead to being ignored. Perhaps M and hg are unusually acute readers; fake it till you make it works well in very much of life. Simplify and exaggerate is how professionals get their messages out.
I believe that most people present badly online in exactly the way M suggests, but most people present badly in person as well.
craigsmiss is nice, thanks for the link.
Heh. Simplify and exaggerate is almost exactly the opposite of my first blog. This is more evidence for staying within one's pleasant niche.
The juxtaposition of 170 and 171 is amusing.
Add your height to 169+170 and I expect you'll do well.
Simplify and exaggerate is how professionals get their messages out.
So that's why my first job interviews didn't go so well.
Megan's gentlemen callers are perfectly self-aware.
They know their work is mediocre, and they know that they need a woman that will tell them it is special, so they will feel special.
When I start a company I'm going to hire only the modest and the self-deprecatory. Everyone else must lack self-awareness.
176: "I'm attracted to all kinds of women, redheads, brunettes, black, white, latinas, you name it, as long as they like my etchings."
Since it's possible to tell so much about a person from a brief conversation f2f, wouldn't anonymized or little used skype accounts be a way to evaluate how well you like someone else quickly?
I'm asking about logistics, I guess.
177:: Company motto: "We sort of suck, but everyone else is worse."
178: That would actually have worked for me (except I don't do etchings).
I'm totally stealing and using 114. Sucks for you, who hates intellectual property now, Nosflow!
128
Has anyone linked Craigsmiss here?
Wait a second, that first one (U & 14th) is about five blocks from where I live. Ugh. Ack. Uh oh.
More charitably, the online dating sites almost force you to define yourselves in terms of interests, hobbies, or some other such bullshit. It's unsurprising that people put up their mediocre photography or whatever because really, what else are you going to say about yourself?
169: I think you just wrote it, Nick, but for "dull' substitute "thoughtful." And for Deeply introverted, risk averse, a trifle tightly wound, and reluctant to try new experiences add or modify with "reserved."
The last time I dated someone via online acquaintance, he wanted to assure himself that I was, in affect and aspect, modest and controlled, since online I can be a bit of a bomb-thrower, and he didn't really want to deal with someone outlandish. The answer was: yes, in person I am reserved, though not mousy.
Also add the music stuff, which is not dull, nor amateurish, but a great enthusiasm of yours.
Since it's possible to tell so much about a person from a brief conversation
A brief text conversation I had yesterday:
"It's megan!"
"Megan?"
"....."
"Which Megan?"
"Megan a—! I just got your number dumb ass."
"I think you might have gotten the wrong number."
"Is this Keith?"
"Nope, sorry."
"I'm so sorry, haha."
"No worries. Bye, Megan."
I always hoped Megan would get in touch.
Convincing other people that you like and value them at least a little is the core of Dale Carnegie's excellent "How to Win Friends and Influence People"
I don't think that this is natural hair growth: concur or disagree?
http://www.craigsmiss.com/2011/04/bucking-bronco.html
really, what else are you going to say about yourself?
Sometimes my urine smells like Honey Smacks. I have never killed anybody who had a fixed address.
Doesn't look implausible to me. Esthetically ill-judged, but hair gets that long.
190: THING I LIKE IN A LADY: MINE.
I wrote Pauly Shore's best material.
It's not his head that I am asking about.
Is there any reason to think a man can't grow hair to what is a common length for women's hair?
188,192: Looks like he shaved a design! How creative!
Oh, I didn't look closely at the chest hair. And I'm not clicking back to do it now.
Or his last partner went to Wisconsin had a big heart tattoo on their chest which hadn't dried.
195: And that's just the half of it.
I sort of find it hard to believe that anyone could look at that picture long enough to be able to comment on any aspect of it without looking closely at the chest hair. It didn't jump out at you?
I'm not clicking back to do it now.
Look, you seem really nice, but I think that our respective senses of humor aren't that compatible.
I'm totally stealing and using 114. Sucks for you, who hates intellectual property now, Nosflow!
I've already used it. You may credit me, if you like.
Hair that long is a bummer to maintain, whether you're male or female. Eh. I'm a fan of long hair in men, but the nekkid-torso presentation is pretty silly. That guy should cut off about a foot of his head hair, which would make him feel more free.
Oh. You weren't talking about the head hair. Right. Well, chest hair is not something a person looks at closely. Some guys just have it, and you nod and move on.
Okay, I clicked back. And I'm actually surprised I didn't notice it -- I was really focusing above the neck there.
Some guys just have it
But not all guys are so artistically expressive with it.
That is true. It's pretty silly. He apparently has some target audience in mind, but it might not be very different from the contortions a number of women go through to present themselves, so I figure the guy is about as daffy as they are.
it might not be very different from the contortions a number of women go through to present themselves
This seems unlike the contortions a number of women go through in that, for better or worse, I think the demand side of the picture is very different.
If you got two brunettes and two redheads to fill in with diamonds, clubs, and spades, there's potential for a set of backup dancers in a Busby Berkeley-esqe poker-themed dance number.
Eh, maybe not.
205: Okay. I leave the thinking about that as an exercise.
Can handle 4 minutes riding this bucking bronco
That might be a good record at a rodeo, but it's not much to brag about in bed. ANALOGY FAIL.
Don't expect a good fucking
When this bronco's bucking
two brunettes and two redheads to fill in with diamonds, clubs, and spades
I'm stuck on the second redhead.
I have long red hair, gentlemen.
210, 211: Try some of this.
More charitably, the online dating sites almost force you to define yourselves in terms of interests, hobbies, or some other such bullshit. It's unsurprising that people put up their mediocre photography or whatever because really, what else are you going to say about yourself?
What's left to say about Facebook, then? Holiday pictures, wedding pictures. That's it. I'm actually quite proud of some of my holiday travel pictures. And I've looked at wedding pictures from ex crushes people I haven't seen for a while that were quite wonderful.
Speaking of Facebook, perhaps the Unfogged site maintainers could add 'Like' buttons to posts, or to comments?
on the grounds that there is absolutely nothing new about my picture of a poppy.
It's hard to do stuff that'll be perceived as new. And getting harder, given that the likely audience will have access to many channels. On the plus side for would be originals: generational churn, audience fragmentation, decrease in leisure hours.
I think that you are missing the stunning gap between what gets sent to me and impressiveness. The size of that gap is what makes me yearn for some hint of self-awareness in online dating.
Mmmm... juicy California sun-ripened low-hanging fruit...
It's hard to do stuff that'll be perceived as new. And getting harder, given that the likely audience will have access to many channels.
Photography is particularly brutal, here. Not only has the required equipment for 'serious' stuff dropped massively in price, but you're basically competing in a 2-second attention span contest against everyone who's ever taken a picture. There's nothing quite equivalent to Megan's flickr-wall-o'-california-poppies; even though thousands of MFA writing-workshoppers are doubtless churning out derivative-as-hell New Yorkerish short stories, to actually engage with those stories at a level sufficient to reject them as derivative is time-consuming enough that you're almost forced to find something there--maybe not greatness, but particularity.
Suppose I take pictures better than 99.9% of other camera-users. On the one hand, that seems to signify real ability, something it's not unreasonable to feel proud of. On the other hand, it means that every day there are hundreds of new photographs uploaded to the web that are better than anything I'll ever do.
Er, should be: "with most other creative endeavors--music composition, long-form writing, dance--there's nothing really equivalent to ..."
I'm not a good photographer, so anytime I travel I find it hard to be enthusiastic about taking pictures. What am I going to take that I couldn't outdo with a few searches through flickr? Novelty shots of me picking the Statue of Liberty's nose?
There's nothing quite equivalent to Megan's flickr-wall-o'-california-poppies
As a not-that-serious birder I have found the bird equivalents (wall-o'-Google image search results work as well) to be quite useful especially for species with different color phases or other variations. The guidebooks and specialized websites have a few canonical pictures/drawings but it is really helpful to get them from all different angles and lighting conditions etc--bad pictures as well as good (sometimes the bad are more of a help than the good). Can really help with GISS (general impression of size and shape) and even habitat. I've bounced it off of a couple of more experienced birders who were somewhat contemptuous but they are wrong.
I've come up against that myself. Now my travel shots are either portraits of people on the trip or something I want to remember (like fantastically ornate bedspreads or jerry-rigged electricity theft or something). I don't even try to take pictures of popular vistas. I can get those from Flickr just fine.
I do take my own pictures of irrigation systems, since I don't trust others to get those right.
I just went back to look at more poppy pictures. I can't believe the people who can't tell an Iceland poppy from a California poppy. Just because you take a picture of a poppy in California doesn't make it a California poppy. Honestly.
I travel I find it hard to be enthusiastic about taking pictures
If people can't think of how to pose for a photo, I always suggest jumping. It's trite and derivative, sure. But who hates jumping?
220, 222: You do have the problem of people who misidentify birds, but usually that is obvious from all of the others on the page and it even helps to illustrate the difference (provides an inadvertent "related species" comparison).
So, everyone post your pictures of stuff on the internet regardless of quality.
223: But who hates jumping?
People without legs, you heartless bastard.
220: They are wrong. My step-father maintains an extensive (and well done, I think) Flickr page of bird shots, and looking at images is so helpful. He and his friends do it in part because they were at the point of needing to make birding more interesting after years and years of it, but also because this is a useful resource!
(PS: I can link you if you want - they're fun, but it's totally anonymity-blowing; email me!)
Brutal to the extent that even selecting the inside of an experimental fusion power generator as your subject doesn't really cut it. Browsing around you can see that the same photographer has resorted to: never taking a photo unless the sky is a uniform overcast, only photographing decayed industrial plant, twisting the focus ring randomly before exposing, selecting only puddles, or rust spots, as features of interest.
I have to say I quite like the old photos at Shorpy. Solid compositions, huge glass plate exposures, two point perspectives.
And thinking more about what I like about Shorpy (and I admit it's on the fusty side): you get to see high quality images where everyone is earnestly walking around wearing bowler hats, bustles, etc. and it's not staged. Someone has to document this stuff.
79% of people think they are weird.
I'd guess most people want to be slightly weird, like in the 10 or 20 percentile range, enough that it's interesting, not so much that people think you're a freak.
Same thing goes for being crazy. And people who actually *are* crazy, will absolutely deny it.
I feel conflicted about the "don't identify as a photographer unless you're really good" claim. (And yes, I know Megan was talking about something much narrower. But I wanna talk about the more extreme version. [Wouldn't it be nice if more e.g. philosophy papers were prefaced by similar disclaimers?])
On the one hand, I tend to think that folks aren't nearly reflective enough about what makes their lives, as presently lived, worthwhile--or concerning whether those lives are, in fact, led in a worthwhile fashion. So, yeah: are you really a photographer/actor/musician/writer/philosopher/parent/lover/sibling? How would you know, if you weren't? When might you say, "no, I guess I'm not one of those anymore; whatever it is that makes that a fitting identity for a person, I don't have it"?
On the other hand, I don't think that our society makes it all that easy to live a worthwhile life, one that can withstand such critical reflection. I mean both that the wrong things are valued, and that there's little attention paid to people as strivers-towards-value, as opposed to IQ-stamped repositories of human capital. So I suspect that if everyone started living rigorously examined lives, the first major consequence would be a skyrocketing suicide rate.
This isn't (merely) me hating on the USA or late-modernity or whatever. I feel like most of human history is a struggle to wrest the occasional pearl of contentment from an indifferent universe. Or rather: I see the emergence of consciousness as fundamentally tragic, creating the need for meaning and value in a world not particularly hospitable to such things.
I guess I could have saved myself and the Mineshaft time by just endorsing nosflow's "Children are innocent and prefer justice; while we are guilty and prefer mercy."
Yes, but I was endorsing your saying it.
Having just been reminded of The Mountain Goats' "No Children," I'm now tickled by the thought of someone putting it in their online dating profile. Surely people have. Perhaps someone here has even seen it done!
I just backtracked to Megan's original complaint in 120 -- I hadn't followed this thread earlier -- and it strikes me that she's rueful about a lack of what Ogged called mental whateverness.
Trapnel is on about something I'd call mindfulness. That's a high bar.
I think you're right about the actual complaint. I do wonder, though, how much of that is situational. Especially with craigslist & OKC, I would imagine that lots of messages get written because the writer is in a very particular mood; it has everything to do with the sender, and nothing to do with the recipient.
Not that I've written to anyone on OKC after stumbling back home drunk after dancing or anything like that--Oh, no, wait, I've done exactly that.
I mean, I'm certainly not defending any of the sins mentioned in 120; I just suspect that many "replies" to online personals aren't really about communication any more than, say, Postsecret is.
it strikes me that she's rueful about a lack of what Ogged called mental whateverness
Isn't everybody?
I just suspect that many "replies" to online personals aren't really about communication
I've never participated in online dating. If it's not about communication, no wonder the replies are wanting.
235: Apparently not! Apparently some people dash about willy-nilly blathering this and that, with nary a glance sideways or back.
It would be great if Pauly's contribution could be gotten rid of.
Everything is cliche if you are sufficiently well read.
Also, the most cliched profiles mention that the person is so random.
Anyway, what i mind about generic profiles is it makes it difficult to write to such a person without making it obvious that (rather like the person the original post was about) you don't actually about their personality. Profiles should not just help you find people you get along with well, but accelerate you into the part of the relationship where you can have some genuine interest in a person.
Apparently some people dash about willy-nilly blathering this and that, with nary a glance sideways or back.
Combined with x trapnel's previous comment I am reminded of one of my favorite images.
Everybody looks at you with strange eyes and goes right on handling his scales, calling this good and that evil; nobody even blushes when you intimate that their weights are underweight--nor do people feel outraged: they merely laugh at your doubts. I mean: the great majority of people does not consider it contemptible to believe this or that and to live accordingly, without first having given themselves an account of the final and most certain reasons pro and con, and without even troubling themselves about such reasons afterward
On the other hand, I suppose I'm not expecting any of you to date me.
someone did something linking to a handful of a commenter's past posts. I recall that Knecht was involved.
Wait, what?
On the other hand, I suppose I'm not expecting any of you to date me.
someone did something linking to a handful of a commenter's past posts. I recall that Knecht was involved.
Wait, what?
To atone for the double-posting, a link to what ogged called the best online dating post ever.
I am sure that there are many, many better pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge out there than the ones I've taken, but the odd thing is that when I look at those pictures, I don't have feel any memory of having been there at the time that the picture was taken. On the other hand, I don't claim to be taking great pictures; they're just pictures of places I've been at the times I was there.
Endless pictures of people, on the other hand, I find horribly tedious and dull. I don't really have a desire to freeze my image of them at a particular place and time and I remember them well enough without the photo. Also, I really don't care what meals looked like.
This reminds me that I've been meaning to finally join flickr for months, but I can't come up with a username that isn't too much like other ones I've used online and I don't really want to use my own name/e-mail login.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2011/04/dont-disgust-me-please.html
Clearly this is how one responds to photographs of/by admirers.
On the photography question, if you are a better cook than 99.9% (or even 99%) of the population I think that is perfectly appropriate to brag about it in a dating profile. So it seems like the same should be true for photography.
This is one good reason for use something like KeePass to store your passwords. Just make something up, and rely on the URL-sensitive auto-complete to remember it. (And if you keep the database in dropbox or something, or have a portable copy on a thumbdrive, no worries about being tied to one computer to get at it.)
248: Yow. What a shame the post doesn't include a copy of the picture.
I think Shearer makes a good point with his banned analogy.
248: Wow. He sure believed in bluntness.
Being a better photographer than 99% of the population isn't that hard. </bitchy >
Although on second thought, maybe Shearer's comparison is a terrible one. I mean, everyone likes good food. Having a good cook as a friend/lover is a clear benefit. But lots of people are rather indifferent about photography.
251: Yes, and some quick searching did not turn up any other pictures of her. But discovered that Lafcadio Hearn was certainly an interesting guy--Greek-Irish by birth,married a black woman in Cincinnati in the 1870s and ended up in Japan as Koizumi Yakumo where he married "the daughter of a local samurai family". His Wikipedia entry gives some more evidence of his pickiness about photography, Lafcadio Hearn, shown with Koizumi Setsu. Note the way he is facing - he always preferred to be photographed this way so that his left eye [he had suffered an injury as a teenager -JPS] could not be seen.
Back to 188: I'm amused at the requirement of specifically four minutes to ride that bucking bronco. I'm imagining an egg timer, with each sand reservoir shaped like a heart, so as to mimic the chest-hair thing.
I am not on the market right now, but I can't imagine what I would write.
Chharacteristics Needed: Someone who can putup with some family drama. Kind and supportive. Not a Republcian.
Me: like old-fashioned things:oriental rugs and antique furniture, elegant dinners, city clubs, but does not take them too seriously. Passionate about healthcare reform. Likes art and classical music but not well educated about either. Popular music tastes embarassingly banal: enjoy classic rock and motown.
Values intellectual pursuits and seeks someone well-educated. Would like someone reasonably energetic, but I won't be able to keep up. Not good at cleaning or regular cleaning. Not sure about kids, but am inclining towards not having them.
Broad vhurvh liberal religion is important to me, particularlythe language of the Book of Common Prayer and meditative church music too. Not athletic byt would like to be more so.
Values city living butlikes to get away to the country and beachy places.
I don't relally rthink that that fits the genre.
"View of" in Bostonspeak apparently.
259: If I didn't know better, I would think that BG is Marianne Dashwood.
....though I must acknowledge that there is little support in the canonical text for Marianne's passion for health care reform.
Sense and Sensibility and Health Care Reform didn't take off in the way Pride and Prejudice and Zombies did, unfortunately.
little support in the canonical text for Marianne's passion for health care reform
Upon review, there is an exchange between John and Fanny Dashwood that seems to be some kind of discussion of entitlement reform:
"A hundred a year would make them all perfectly comfortable."
His wife hesitated a little, however, in giving her consent to this
plan.
"To be sure," said she, "it is better than parting with fifteen hundred
pounds at once. But, then, if Mrs. Dashwood should live fifteen years
we shall be completely taken in."
"Fifteen years! my dear Fanny; her life cannot be worth half that
purchase."
"Certainly not; but if you observe, people always live for ever when
there is an annuity to be paid them; and she is very stout and healthy,
and hardly forty. An annuity is a very serious business; it comes over
and over every year, and there is no getting rid of it. You are not
aware of what you are doing. I have known a great deal of the trouble
of annuities; for my mother was clogged with the payment of three to
old superannuated servants by my father's will, and it is amazing how
disagreeable she found it. Twice every year these annuities were to be paid; and then there was the trouble of getting it to them; and then
one of them was said to have died, and afterwards it turned out to be
no such thing. My mother was quite sick of it.
260: It should have been "church."