[H]e's crazy in some sort of undesirable way, or without meaning to, he's actively avoiding getting close to women he might be interested in.
I have no idea what you're talking about. You're babbling. You're not making any sense. You're hysterical.
Ogged was very clear about this sort of thing
Well, let's be careful putting Ogged forth as a standard example of anything. I'd have to think about the argument for longer than I have in order to have an opinion about it in general terms. But applying just to myself, I don't think I can really identify a "type" that runs through my relationship history (of course, I probably make a poor standard example as well). I think my dating life could be fairly described as turning viable one-night stands into a series of ill-advised year-long relationships, so the only recognizable pattern is "was nearby at the right time and said yes".
... Ogged was very clear about this sort of thing: no one who wasn't a slim-hipped, outdoorsy tomboyish type with multiple graduate degrees who wouldn't make him go camping, spoke English as a first language and was dripping with mental whateveriness need apply. ...
Is that what he ended up with?
... does it ring true to anyone else?
Not to me.
...he'd probably have been reasonably flexible about her being an ax murderer.
Is that what he ended up with?
Um - you're describing the partner with less power in the relationship market. In this case, you're describing the 30-something woman, who is on the losing end of competition with 20-30-something women and will settle. Likewise, young men, who are in competition with older, wealthier men, are typically willing to settle for anything.
Over-educated graduate students are a special case. I know at least two whose incredibly restrictive criteria for girlfriends protects them from the painful knowledge that they are just too weird to date. Consider it pre-emptive refusal.
I dunno, it doesn't ring true to me either. Targets vs standards sounds like a measure of one's willingness to compromise when evaluating a potential partner. But I wouldn't say that men are less willing to compromise than women.
Supporting the OP, the recent NYer article about online dating said:
"Men want someone who will take care of them, make them look good, and have sex with them--not not necessarily in that order. It may be that this is all that women really want, too, but they are better at disguising or obscuring it. They deal in calculus, while men, for the most part, traffic in simple sums."
Things like this both ring true and seem a little unfair to me men, but I am in no position to judge.
Unsure if this conforms to my experience or not.
I'm definitely open to the idea that men and women might be broadly prepared to compromise on different things. Although that could lead quickly to crude stereotyping if not handled carefully.
Although that could lead quickly to crude stereotyping if not handled carefully.
On the veldt, crude stereotyping was the only stereotyping possible. With the dawn of the Iron Age, stereotyping technology advanced prodigiously, which is why we have all those tablets about spendthrift Hittite ex-wives and cuneiform dating profiles with captions like "Seeking partner in ritual pollution."
We're talking about gender without using crude stereotyping? I'd better stay out.
Alot of single women seem to be on the tall and smart side, so they've followed a "taller and as smart" standard and found that, surprise, tall and smart men are in short supply. I don't know what that shows, other than that women are really unfair to short guys (5'11, if you're wondering).
15: That's three inches taller than me and I'm married.
Women are really unfair to me, but I'm not very nice to them either.
17: Shouldn't that come from "OPINIONATED MAN"?
he'd probably have been reasonably flexible about her being an ax murderer.
On the veldt, female ax murderers maximized their reproductive success by doing away with the competition.
The notion that if you lined up all of the uncoupled 30-40ish men and women, it would be easier to identify a discrete number of common issues with the men than with the women rings true to me for some reason. Even though I've never made a study of the matter.
Maybe it's because, thanks to Judd Aptow movies & etc., pop culture has a very distinct image of the not-suitable-for-a-relationship adult male?
Alot of single women seem to be on the tall and smart side
The alot might be tall and smart, but I don't see what it has to do with single women.
The excerpt quoted in 10 strikes me as not supporting the OP. Beyond that I have no opinion, having been out of the dating business for 30 years, and having had all efforts to set up friends fail.
Targets vs standards sounds like a measure of one's willingness to compromise when evaluating a potential partner. But I wouldn't say that men are less willing to compromise than women.
That wasn't what I meant -- if this makes any sense at all, I'm saying that in some respects men are much more likely to compromise than women. They locate someone who reminds them of their desired image, they'll go ahead even if she sets their car on fire to roast marshmallows over it. I'm not sure at all that I'm right about this, but that's the baseless assertion.
And of course everyone's right about Ogged not being typical of anything, and I don't in fact know anything at all about the woman he married -- she could be exactly as described, or she could be a heavily accented Russian with wide hips in spike heels.
A lot of married and coupled men are not single.
I'm saying that in some respects men are much more likely to compromise than women.
And in some respects, they're less likely to compromise, and the areas on which men (generally) are more likely to compromise than woman are more variable than the areas on which women (generally) are more likely to compromise than men, is your claim, if I'm understanding your claim correctly? If so, it doesn't ring true to me.
There's also the stereotype that guys know from their very first encounter with a woman if they are/could be physically attracted to her, whereas women can develop attraction to a man. So maybe it's not so much that a guy is particularly looking for a
woman with long straight hair, thick legs, and a slightly heavy-but-hourglassy build
but rather that he would know immediately upon meeting her whether that could work for him. This is compatible with apo's not being able to identify a "type" in his relationship history.
Digby ...had a gender post.
boys didn't express angst or distress about discussing problems any more than girls. Instead, boys' responses suggest that they just don't see talking about problems to be a particularly useful activity."
Found my soulmate two decades, and the relationship is wonderful. Days go by without a word exchanged.
They locate someone who reminds them of their desired image, they'll go ahead even if she sets their car on fire to roast marshmallows over it.
Everything you are saying reminds me of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl image in romantic comedies. (Or as ttaM put it, American men like their women 'kookie', although it is impossible for outsiders to figure out the difference between this and 'annoying')
I think you are basically right, and your point can be put in more conventional terms by saying that women are more conservative in their dating strategies. It's a maximin strategy. Women want to make the worst possile outcome as best as it can be. (Rawls, by the way refers to this as the 'rational' strategy.)
You could put this in veldty terms by talking about women needing first of all men who will stick around to raise kids. But you could also just think of it as a result of a the power imbalance between men and women. Men aren't thinking about the worst possible scenarios, because the odds are so much less that something catastrophic will happen to them in a patriarchical society.
although it is impossible for outsiders to figure out the difference between this and 'annoying'
I think you've found the secret motto of everybody who has had dealings with me in the past several years.
25: That's the claim. Back off a bit to what was the foundational observation, that if you line chronically single men up next to usually partnered men, the partnered men are going to be generally obviously more 'functional' either broadly or relationship-wise than the single men. ("Functional" isn't something I have a good definition for -- it's an I know it when I see it thing. I'm just going to say that you're going to be able to spot what's putting a chronically single man in that category.) If you do the same thing for women, it's not going to be nearly as easy -- probably some sort of attractiveness/niceness differential between the two groups, but for any individual single woman, diagnosing the cause of her singleness is likely to be harder.
The mechanism I suggested is pulled out of the air, but I think that observation fits what I see around me.
28 sounds good to me, as does 26 -- it's perfectly possible that the same guy could be carrying around a selection of search images, that would make it possible for him to be interested in women who didn't all resemble each other. But each prospect would be checked against the list of images, and would get an immediate yes or no.
30: Let's put this in terms of math. You are proposing that the distribution of relationship suitability for women in something approaching normal or at least a unimodal distribution. For men, the relationship-suitability distribution is something bimodal or multidimensional.
I don't know why everyone's so hostile to the Manic Pixie Dream Girl. She seems perfectly nice to me.
I have a stereotype in my head of what sort of woman I would be particularly attracted to, which corresponds closely with reality. But they are also the ones I feel particularly inadequate around, so it all balances out with the effect that I have never dated such a woman.
it's perfectly possible that the same guy could be carrying around a selection of search images
If he has a smart phone or something, that's true.
34: Your fiancee doesn't read here, does she?
The contention in the OP is exactly the opposite of both the popular cliche and a large amount of peer-reviwed psychological research that finds that women are more selective in dating situations. See e.g. the opening literature review on the first two pages of this paper . It starts off:
"Heterosexual women tend to be more selective than heterosexual men in the dating realm. Indeed, a best-selling introductory psychology textbook recently summarized the relevant literature as follows: ''People select their reproductive and sexual partners, and perhaps the most striking fact about this selection is that women are more selective than men'' (Schacter, Gilbert, & Wegner, 2009, p. 631, italics in original).
(The paper itself questions the conventional wisdom in interesting ways, just using it because it's a good reference for the literature).
I agree that this changes as the sexes age, for dating market reasons probably.
32: I don't think that's it. I think you really need the maximin language.
Going into relationship, there are a range of possible outcomes. The conservative strategy would be to focus on the worst possible outcomes in that range, and then only enter into relationships where the low end of the range of possible outcomes isn't so bad.
The stragegy that gets you manic pixie dream girls says to look at the high end of possible outcomes and if they are stratosopheric (hey we are talking Audrey Hepburn here!) go for it.
38: That's a selection strategy, not the distribution from which you are selecting.
37: The claim isn't that either men or women are more selective. It is that they are selective about different things.
Somebody please pay attention to me. I'm lonely.
37: If you're reading it as 'men are more selective than women' or the reverse, you're misreading it. The claim is that women are selective in terms of applying a set of metrics, but they could be rigorous (I'm only looking at men over 6'2 who make six figures and have impeccably chivalrous manners) or lax (I'm looking for a guy who isn't mean). Men are selective in terms of looking for resemblance to an ideal, but that can be insanely fussy (I want the Winona Ryder character from Beetlejuice. Precisely.) or much more relaxed (has to be high-energy, perky, and with coloring in the brown/brown/olive-skin range).
So women are either rigorous or lax, while men are either fussy or relaxed.
I take the "foudational observation" to be that, given photographs and brief biographies (or maybe video clips or live interviews are necessary, whatever, you get the point), it's going to be "easier" (which I'll interpret as "have a lower error rate") to segregate the chronically single men from the usually partnered men than it would be to segregate the the chronically single women from the usually partnered women.
This still doesn't ring true for me, and I wonder if the fact that it arose from a conversation between two heterosexual woman is important? Maybe it's easier for you to spot the differences among the men because you're used to looking for them?
Personally, I feel like I'd find it easier to segregate the women. Although if you really tested me empirically, I'm not confident my error rate for the women would end up measurably lower.
I was trying to sound equally hostile to picky people of both sexes. Did I fail?
30 is getting closer to what is wanted to be said
1) Single men = loosers and jerks
2) single women = see number one
33:never could stand her. She talks too much
Or as ttaM put it, American men like their women 'kookie', although it is impossible for outsiders to figure out the difference between this and 'annoying'
I think Alex actually said this. But I somewhat agree re: the annoyingness of kookie.
MPDGs are great. I think the feminist hostility has to do with the idea that the screenwriter is just depicting a two-dimensional wish fulfillment fantasy of a woman who brings color to the man's life. In real life the situation is totally different -- she's a real person who is with you for a reason too, and everyone's needs are being met.
The female equivalent is the sexy stranger on the motorcycle who shakes up your life and your perception of romantic possibilities. Everyone needs to break out of a rut sometimes.
I wonder if the fact that it arose from a conversation between two heterosexual woman is important? Maybe it's easier for you to spot the differences among the men because you're used to looking for them?
Very possible. Part of what I was wondering is if all the men would rise up as one and say "No, that's exactly wrong, you've got the sexes flipped." And I'm not sure how it would work for gay people dating at all; if the dynamic is driven by the gender of the person looking or the gender of the prospect.
Part of what I was wondering is if all the men would rise up as one and say "No, that's exactly wrong, you've got the sexes flipped."
Well, that's sort of exactly what I said in 44.
It's possible that any men who are disagreeing with me are just revealing their latent homosexuality. (NTTAWWT.)
Latent homosexuality would probably be a good thing for straight women to use as a relationship criteria.
I agree with 6 above that this is a function of age. In a college dorm the freshman girls and the senior guys get the most dates, and the freshman girls and senior guys who don't date are a bit odd. In the outside world, women under and guys over 30-35 have the odds in their favor. Since you and most of the people you know are over that age, the single guys seem less functional than the single women on average. Similarly, single tall/rich/handsome/intelligent men are more likely to seem non-functional than single men who lack those traits.
Ignoring personality for a moment (hey, I'm a guy), my impression is that men considered by women acceptably attractive are a much more heterogeneous lot than the converse.
42: LB, the universal and consistent finding is that when presented with a group of N potential opposite-sex partners, women will be willing to date a smaller fraction of N then men will be. In other words, women are consistently more selective in the initial phases of dating. I'm having a hard time framing your claim in a similarly straightforward manner and seeing how it doesn't conflict with the finding of higher female selectivity.
I do believe that selectivity changes a lot when you move past the initial phases of dating and into committment -- once women agree to date you, they are very likely to want to stay in the relationship, whereas I'm not sure the same is true of men. I don't think researchers have looked at that as much. When I was younger, I used to explain it to my female friends in a sort of crass way -- women choose before they sleep with you, men choose after they sleep with you.
In a college dorm the freshman girls and the senior guys get the most dates, and the freshman girls and senior guys who don't date are a bit odd.
Any seniors still in the dorms in college are generally going to be a bit odd, no?
54: Doesn't that say more about how men and women use dating, rather than their standards for a relationship?
55: DO YOU KNOW HOW EXPENSIVE APARTMENTS IN CAMBRIDGE ARE?
Women look for men who can afford apartments in Cambridge because on the veldt, there were no dorm rooms.
56: very possibly -- I've always thought that the psychology findings of greater female selectivity were completely explicable by men being much more open to temporary flings, while the sexes were equally selective for real long term relationships.
On the veldt, landlords demanded three months' rent in advance, plus the broker's fee.
57: But freshmen and seniors don't live in the same dorms at Harvard.
On the veldt, landlords had strict rules about keeping leopards and lemurs.
To the extent that I'm aware of any differences at all* it's more that the women I know seem more inclined to explicitly state what their criteria are whereas I don't think I know any blokes who've ever explicitly described in words what they like/want beyond physically attractive (in some unspecified way) and not a shit to other people (in some unspecified way). It also seems to me that those women I know who have explicit criteria have what seem to me to be profoundly unrealistic and/or stupid standards. However, that might just be because those are the ones I remember.
* and I'm not, much
I bet a pet lemur would be pretty cool.
On the veldt, if the police showed up to one of your house parties, your landlord was notified and you got evicted.
64: Go to this place. Ask for "C.T." and tell him your a friend of Moby's. Slip him $500, drive your car behind the building (leaving the door closest to the building unlocked), and stop when you get to the service door. Have a nice lemur carrying cage and appropriate food.
re: 66
Possibly. Talking too explicitly about what you might or might not want in a partner codes as pretty unfuckingmanly to me. Not that I'm personally particularly concerned with how manly, or not, I am but I just can't imagine most of my male friends talking to me about it.
I think LB is make a veldt argument!
For women on the veldt, choosing a mate was crucial. The chances of her offspring surviving depended on her mate being strong, healthy, commanding social capital. In today's terms this means that women go for the man with highest social status that they can get.
For men, the choice is much less important, so they choose on the basis of all kinds of silly, idiosyncratic stuff.
67, appendix: Be sure to say "your" and not "you're" or he'll think you are a cop.
69: Nah, there's no reason I can tell to attribute anything evolutionary to this sort of difference. It's not as if we don't have enough socially distinct gender roles to explain that sort of thing. (I.e., what Rob was talking about. Not on the veldt, but here and now, and even more so here and recently, being in a relationship with a fucked up man was likely to be much more scary for a woman than the same situation with the genders flipped.)
71: And I was sure you be excited to understand the evolutionary basis your argument!
Actually rob's argument doesn't make sense to me. Because a guy is good-looking, rich, and has good social skills is not a reason to think he won't be "fucked up".
it's more that the women I know seem more inclined to explicitly state what their criteria
They don't mean it, they're just talkin' Real men don't listen, but do what's right.
whereas I don't think I know any blokes who've ever explicitly described in words what they like/want
the women never find out what the men want until it's too late, because the blokes never talk.
55: Either odd, or interested in freshman girls.
72: "Good social skills", interpreted broadly, actually is a reason to think someone is non-dangerous. It's not perfect, nothing is, but how people behave around other people is the only way you can tell how they're going to behave around you.
I am not positive that you can make any accurate generalizations without breaking it down into age ranges.
Also, what is definition of single? Willing to go more than 6 month without a date?
77: I guess I meant smooth and charming -- the superficial kind of thing that would be apparent right away in your hypothetical line-up.
Figures. They always like the Ted's better
78: Say, late twenties and up: after the point at which most people have either gotten married or been in one or more relationships measured in years and were either cohabiting or close to it. I don't think it works well at all younger than that.
"Single" is slippery, I admit. "Would like to be in a long-term, committed relationship, but has gone years without anything longer-term than a few months" maybe?
I get what you're saying, LB. I'm inclined to think the targets/standards include lifestyle as well as looks, but the effect can be described in the looks facet.
I'm buying your arguments for different kinds of elasticity, too. "Meets target, so can be fucking crazy in some ways." And "Meets standard, so can be a very different person than I thought I'd like."
WTF with the assumption that childrearing was easy on the veldt? Wildebeest a week & all the kids survive? Gathering isn't easy, keeping an infant warm enough simultaneously wouldn't be easy, & negotiation among the tribe was still negotiation. Isn't the difficulty of raising human infants the current hypothetical cause for couples instead of herds of humans?
Also, what is definition of single? Willing to go more than 6 month without a date?
Aren't you single unless you've had a discussion with someone and taken yourself off the market?
I bet a pet lemur would be pretty cool.
Hi, this is my little friend Lemmy. He'll bite your finger and then shit on your carpet.
(Full disclosure: I've never had a pet lemur, but I lived in a house where we were visited by a wild but very tame bush baby, which isn't much different. Probably better introduced to an established and tolerant menage.)
Yea, I think you have to break it down to women in child-bearing years, then women out of child bearing years, then women whose children are not dependent on them (ie in college or out of home).
For men, there would be slightly different break-downs. Maybe, first job out of school, then perhaps 34- 40, then 40 - 50.....
I tend to think that your situation regarding children impacts women more than men when it comes to dating. That is probably changing some as more younger men have custody of their children.
I mostly agree with the comment above by PGD about the choice for men is made after sex and by women before sex. I am not sure that there is a ton of difference really though bt whether men or women are willing to not be in a committed relationship for more than 6 months.
Allow me to adopt a superior tone and state that I don't really understand why people are so reliably interested in promulgating generalizations like that in the OP.
On the veldt, we needed stuff to argue about in the long nights without good artificial lighting.
Hi, this is my little friend Lemmy.
Saying that very often is the kind of thing that makes women try to avoid you.
I lived in a house where we were visited by a wild but very tame bush baby
Squee.
He'll bite your finger and then shit on your carpet.
This doesn't distinguish lemurs from the Ex's more ordinary pets, who universally regarded me as chewtoy and latrine.
95: Don't date someone who keeps cattle.
96: As if the odds against me weren't bad enough already.
My gym owner, who is admittedly more than little insane, offered the following advice to a guy moping about relationships: "Decide you actually want a relationship. Don't be too fat. Don't be too weird.".
That's kinda harsh but probably covers like 80% of the reasons people are unhappily single.
OP is interesting. I agree with others that it's age-dependent, and futher think that this:
"Functional" isn't something I have a good definition for
is an important point. For example, JBS as he writes here is in some ways functional and in other ways not in exactly the ways that I believe chronically single women are nonfunctional. (The key point is not charm but an ability to compromise with other people nearby, IMO).
Basically, I think that with a suitable definition of functional, the claim that men and women choose differently is false. I believe that this is because it's easy to hide serious flaws in one's interpersonal style in a specialized society. Being superficially kind is basically meaningless, I think, and hugely overvalued, especially in the US. What matters most is judgement and capacity for effective and generous action during times of trouble, I think. Since most functional people are independent and capable of usually shielding themselves from trouble, childrearing, financial or health crises turn up completely hidden aspects of personality.
Decide you actually want a relationship
I think this really is the key most of the time:
1) Genuinely putting yourself out there
2) Not being choosy.
Following those 2 rules, the overwhelming majority of people will get in a relationship.
But that isn't necessarily a good thing.
Not being choosy.
Hooray for lowered standards!
In the front with you, sir.
Following those 2 rules, the overwhelming majority of people will get in a relationship.
I'm pretty
But it can still take a while to get there. There's also
3) Wait for a compatible person to come along.
Ha! That was a part of a sentence I was going to finish, with 'pretty' as a submodifier.
Was the rest of the sentence "I'm pretty fucking good looking"?
Well sure, if you're pretty you can put yourself out there, lower your standards, and eventually wind up with Tweety, but this isn't going to work for everyone.
THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH OF ME TO GO AROUND, LAYDEEZ.
THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH OF ME TO GO AROUND, LAYDEEZ, to get to the really hot guy lurking in the background.
3) Wait for a compatible person to come along.
No, this is a different approach.
Less likely to succeed, if it succeeds: more likely to take longer, and, yet, the end results may be better.
One other angle to this, which sort of ties back to PDG's point that "women choose before they sleep with you, men choose after they sleep with you": we're talking specifically about "unhappily" single people--i.e., those who are looking for more of a relationship than they have, but not finding it. Stereotyping (but no more than is being done in the rest of this thread, and I don't think unfairly), my impression is that more generally sexually successful but single women would put themselves in this "unhappily single" category than generally sexually successfully but single men. So, when you limit yourself to the "unhappily single" subset of all single people, you're pulling from diffferent pools--you're going to have a disproportionate number of generally sexually unsuccessful men, compared to women. So, that might possibly explain some of the greater homogeneity of the "unhappily single" male population*--it seems possible that characteristics that could make an individual sexually unsuccessful might be more homogenous than characteristics that could make an individual unsuccessful in relationships.
* Assuming there is in fact a greater homogeneity of the "unhappily single" male population, which I haven't yet conceded and still actually doubt. All of the above is merely granting for the sake of argument.
Now I want unemployment-style statistics and descriptions. Single and looking? Single but discouraged and dropped out of the market? Dating, but looking for something more full-time?
99 is one of the better pieces of relationship wisdom I've ever seen, even if it's hard to know exactly what to do with it.
Re 111, if you buy the "women choosing before" generalization, one implication is that if a man is sexually successful he is going to have plenty of relationship options, while the same may not be true of women who have a lot of sexual partners.
89: I skimmed the post and then thought, ok, but how do they drive? Like this?
98.1 and 99 both seem quite wise. I'm going to think them over, very seriously.
Targets vs. standards. That's interesting. I'm not sure it really works as a general distinction, but it at least invites a bit of unpacking as to how one is working these things.
What I generally look for in a woman, in order, is a) chemistry (both of personality and sexuality), b) confidence and social poise (insecurity is a massive drag -- a person easily threatened by my having large numbers of friends of the opposite sex is right out -- as is being with someone who gets nervous at the thought of working a room), c) beauty (it's nice to be with someone whose presence is intoxicating), and d) functionality (sanity, non-addiction, some basic threshold of fiscal responsibility). A) and B) are the absolute musts, and about the most specific criterion in there is social poise, which rules out a number of otherwise fabulous women whose lifestyles just aren't compatible. But that looks to me like a list of standards rather than a target per se. I certainly don't need a specific physical type.
(And that "functionality" is so far back on the list would certainly explain some of my prior relationships. It's also probably a fairly gendered trait; despite the fluctuations in the real-life economic positions of men and women, most(?) men are still taught to think like breadwinners -- or worse, Knights in Shining Armor -- and still model themselves on men of that type.)
I don't think I'm in fact all that unusual among guys in that I'm looking for a set of standard. But it is relatively unusual for guys to really itemize what they're looking for; ergo a lot of male discourse tends to center around ideal physical types and convey the illusion that that's what the men concerned are actually seeking above all (a similar confusion to that of men observing female discourse and extracting from it the notion that women are or should be looking for "nice" guys).
"Um - you're describing the partner with less power in the relationship market. In this case, you're describing the 30-something woman, who is on the losing end of competition with 20-30-something women and will settle. Likewise, young men, who are in competition with older, wealthier men, are typically willing to settle for anything."
I agree with 6.
Also, since men generally are the ones asking women for dates, pickiness has the possibility of being less of a problem for men. It is easier to keep up a romantic preference for asian people who wear glasses, when you who are the one who is asking people out. Especially when your type isn't preferentially desired by your gender in general.
A lot of men develop a type by gradually associating the type with sex and companionship.
118: young men, who are in competition with older, wealthier men, are typically willing to settle for anything
Not so. Youth and good looks are a major advantage in the sex / relationship market that can compensate for relative poverty. Age and wealth can't really compete with them except in the very small market that can cater to well-paid mistresses or trophy brides, and most of those will also keep younger boyfriends.
118 was me.
Also, it would be interesting to see how women who get a flood of interest with on-line dating deal with the situation. Do they develop targets or do they pump up the standards?
119 is totally right, and I believe that Goneril once pointed to SCIENCE demonstrating it.
I agree that women are more attracted to youth and good looks than wealth. However, even a small age difference preference, like 3 years or so, can lead to the effect in 6.
A lot of men develop a type by gradually associating the type with sex and companionship.
I don't understand this. Like, a guy date a couple of asian women in a row, and then in his head it comes to be that asian woman = sex and companionship?
Does "willing to touch my penis" count as a "type"?
I believe that's known as touch typing.
As opposed to being a hunt 'n' pecker?
It's hard enough to venture outside the home row.
I suppose quality of the relationship would be evaluated in strokes per minute.
Although if your home is the scene of too many rows, your fingers can start to wander.
I find it interesting that nobody has yet mentioned "put some hard work into it" as a factor. There's a lot of difference between getting laid on a Saturday night and having a relationship. If you believe that when somebody "meets your standards" or "is your type" that's enough to make a relationship, come back when you turn 21.
Everybody is going to fall short once you start getting to know them better. If you want a relationship you have to find out i. how far short doesn't actually matter; ii. how many fights you're prepared to survive before you find out; what your deal breakers really are, as opposed to what you thought they were; iv. is the other person addressing the same questions.
I don't think you can talk about being coupled up, as opposed to having a number for a booty call, until you both get to the end of that list and you've washed the blood off your ideals.
130: It's funny, that sounds very realistic in the abstract, but also kind of unfamiliar. Like, I never had an experience of working through disillusionment with Buck; there have been moments of crankiness in the last sixteen years, but nothing that sounds like your i-iv.
Maybe that happens in the third decade of the relationship.
130 is totally right, of course. Though I think it's more applicable to "continuing to be in a relationship" than "being single." I.e., the factors that get you into a relationship in the first place are different than the ones that make it work over the long term -- I was taking "unhappily single" to mean people who are having trouble getting paired up at all, not people who are having trouble maintaining sustained relationships.
If your ideals come with slip covers, cleaning is easier.
Like, I never had an experience of working through disillusionment with Buck
awwww....
She had no illusions to begin with.
I never had an experience of working through disillusionment with Buck
I never had the work of bucking experience with disillusionment.
Now I want unemployment-style statistics and descriptions. Single and looking? Single but discouraged and dropped out of the market? Dating, but looking for something more full-time?
Does this mean all the times I was single I could have been applying for a government program that got me laid as long as I could prove that I had been on a few dates and stuff?
"The Relation Ship" would be a terrible name for a boat.
Does "willing to touch my penis" count as a "type"?
I had a font joke but it got worse with each edit.
There are no bad jokes, unless you are George Lopez.
135: Heaven is having heebie's ass, LB's relationship, Megan's strength and alameida's orgasms.
Hell is ...
This is undoubtedly among the most unwise things I've ever contemplated posting.
I viewed Moby's 141 as a challenge.
That's why I so rarely try to encourage people.
142: Man, there's really no way out of that one, is there? The four of us will be by shortly to beat the crap out of you.
"I don't understand this. Like, a guy date a couple of asian women in a row, and then in his head it comes to be that asian woman = sex and companionship? "
I think male preference types develop over time rather than are something that is fixed to begin with. And that a couple of interactions can start the process pretty arbitrarily. Obviously, not everyone of your type is going to want to go out with you.
145: If he says which one of you has the worst ass, will only one person beat the crap out of him?
will only one person beat the crap out of him?
While the frigid, unhappily married, weaklings stand by? Nah, I think we're all in regardless.
OT: I don't think anyone here lives in or near Vegas, but am I wrong? If anyone did, I'd have a drink this weekend/beginning of next week. (Well, I'll be drinking in any case, of course.)
Sorry, that was me. Don't know where my name went.
Are you calling me on the cellular phone? Did I actually post that out loud? I don't know me. Who was that? Don't come here, I'm hanging up the modem! Prank poster, prank poster!
Um, prank poster, prank poster!
LB, where are you staying in Vegas? There is a possibility that I will be there next Tuesday.
A female friend once told me that the two most important criteria for women choosing a man were competence and confidence. The man must be good at something, though it doesn't matter that much what they are good at. Everything else just has to satisfy the minimum standards hypothesis in the post.
We're at the comically named Wynn. Email me if you're around.
154: That sounds like The Tao of Steve.
156: Interestingly, she told me this a couple of years before the movie came out.
The Wynn is very nice despite the egomaniacal name.
158: I used to go around telling people "There is no spoon" years before The Matrix came out. Nobody was amazed. They were just upset that I never did the dishwashing.
I'd feel more comfortable at its sister hotel, the Luz.
(Poking around for entertaining things to do at night in Vegas reminds me how much I dislike fun.)
...and, possible Vegas trip no longer a reality. Oh well.
Anyhow, the Wynn is indeed very nice. My Vegas advice is just to go to the spa in the hotel, eat well, and not leave the premises. Or, you could do what I've always wanted to do and either (a) go to the track where they let you race supercars (i.e., a Lamborghini Gallardo) for like 300 bucks or (b) go to one of the shooting ranges where you can fire AK-47s.
Also, the Cirque du Soleil shows are actually pretty great if you're at all inclined towards that kind of thing.
156: Written (and directed?) by a fellow alum of Dr Oops and helpy-chalk and me (Santa Fe edition).
I mean, seriously LB, go to this place and shoot some machine guns. Do it for the blog.
The best thing in Vegas, which was Quark's Bar at the Star Trek Experience, is now gone, sadly. You should wander around and drink.
166: My friends wimped out of going to that place last time (also the first time) I was in Vegas. It sounds terrifyingly fun/horrible.
166: Also, a machine gun range is not the place to debate targets vs. standards.
I just realized that if someone's well-paid mistress is keeping a boy her age on the side, that boy should hook up with the wife of the guy keeping the mistress, just to complete the circle.
Machine guns does sound interesting. That'd bring my lifetime experience of physical contact with firearms of any kind up to twice.
171: And this time, there's no teller to sound an alarm.
Doesn't ring true for my experience, but I'm comfortable accepting that I generally fail to sync with gender norms.
173: DAMN YOU, WAINGROW!
Don't let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner
I started watching Tao of Steve last night. Is Donal Logue wearing a prosthetic gut? Unfortunately the disc was unplayable so we had to give up halfway through, but Netflix is sending us a new one. It's our last disc before we go streaming only.
The only place in Vegas where you can drink without the sounds of slot machines is the Pepper Mill Lounge. It's a wonderful place, a kind of fern-bar-era joint with floor-set fire pits.
There are top-notch restaurants, a decade-old development, and double snaps to the Cirque shows.
The OP is just a mess, a mess, I say! (kidding)
I want to agree, roughly, with it chiefly because the way Ogged -- cited as an example -- presented his wishes does seem to fit. I'd venture, though, that he came up with all of that after some period of years examining his personal predilections, and concluded that it was unlikely he'd have true long-term success with a woman who did not meet all or most of those criteria. That's actually a little different from walking into the dating life with an ideal/target in mind, and doggedly refusing to give it up.
I'm wandering here. But I'm with those who stress that the age of the dater, or single person, has a great deal to do with it. Personally, as I've gotten older, I become not less choosy but more, where long-term potential is concerned, because I know myself better. I now know that as much mutual chemistry and admiration I might have for, say, an artist, if he is not a talker (as my mom used to put it), it's a bad idea. When I was younger I'd shrug off something like inarticulacy, because hey, free-spiritedness is awesome too. By now I know that ultimately that creative, caring, politically active guy (say) is not going to work out in the end if he is not also delighted to talk for more than 20 minutes at a stretch. Preferably repeatedly, with the talking and discussing.
I've lost track of my conclusion for the moment.
The key, guys, is to learn to read with the bottom part of your vision, and have at least two stories about losing a dog to give her a five minute break per hour. And some jokes, of course.
I can't figure out if that means I have standards or a target. It sounds like a target, at least one minimum requirement (though that's putting it too strongly), and if "standards" are understood, per the OP, as
fairly simple standards: ability to interact pleasantly in ordinary social situations, capacity to support themselves financially, generally being functional. Women, in evaluating possible romantic partners, rule guys out on the basis of a broadly shared set of fairly objective standards
then, no, what I have are not standards, so understood.
I hope you can all tell that I've reviewed the actual thread here a bit quickly. I see that functionality has been problematized upthread, which seems right.
I'm lonely. But I can't afford the luxury
Of having one I love to come along
She'd only slow me down and they'd catch up with me
For he who travels fastest goes alone
The OP strikes me as intuitively true in a general sense, but like a lot of single women here, I don't find it fits as a description of me. I am far more interested in meeting someone fascinating and brilliant than seeking a stable, kind, gentle person. There are things that are just not negotiable for me that don't have a lot to do with functionality or relationship potential. Probably the standard I have is that I won't be talked down to or disrespected. (I can be criticized, but not instructed as if I am a naughty child.)
A few weeks ago, a friend I hadn't seen in a while came over to say goodbye to me before I moved, and as he's telling me about a long-distance relationship he's begun and how amazing it is to feel really loved for the first time, he's interrupted by about 30 passive-aggressive text messages asking him where he is and then "I'm OK. I'm fine" and "I'm not fine... I'm just... annoyed... that you're with your friend and not skyping with me." So he had to call her and talk her down and make her feel loved and that she is always the #1 priority in his life. And then he asks me what I think about it. So I say she sounds like a fucking nightmare. He nods, and says, yeah, she is a fucking nightmare, but it's just so great to feel loved, you know?
And that's when I realized that I don't understand relationships at all.
186.last: I don't think that's the right conclusion in that instance.
186.1 had me thinking, ah yes, there is someone out there who sees things like me.
186.2 had me thinking there are probably a lot of folks who see/saw me as being a bit like AWB is seeing her friend's GF.
186.3 sums it up.
He nods, and says, yeah, she is a fucking nightmare, but it's just so great to feel loved, you know?
Maybe he has nice stuff you can take after she stabs him.
Or maybe he'll stab her and you can have his stuff when he goes to prison. Either way.
Let me (not at all defensively...) throw this out there. The fact that, while gushingly in love (with *feeling* loved...), he's agreeing that she's a "fucking nightmare" could relate to her apparent insecurity...
My main conclusion from 186.2 is that long-distance relationships are great for the person who is less emotionally invested in the relationship and awful for the other person. This is also the conclusion I came to from my own (very limited) experience with one.
192: Good observation and ditto for my (not so limited) experience from both sides.
Close distance relationships are great for the person who is more emotionally invested in the relationship and involve much less time in airports.
Unless the person you are in a relationship with is that guy who got played by Tom Hanks in that one movie where he lived in an airport.
192: I emphatically agree. Maybe true of all relationships. Still figuring that out...
Come on. There's no defending the behavior in 186.2 (understanding maybe, but not defending). So much better to be alone that to have to deal with that kind of bullshit from anyone.
Better to be left alone with your meat and medicine balls.
191: Oh, totally, my friend is a pig. He has been sleeping with a lot of other women the whole time he's conducting this relationship, without her knowledge, and he wondered if I thought that meant that maybe he's not quite as invested as he thinks he is. I ended up saying it seems really clear to me that what he gets off on is surveillance and discipline, and he agreed.
Maybe true of all relationships.
Quite possibly, but the effect definitely seems to be intensified with distance.
There are people who prefer long-distance relationships. The "am I looking for, or going to be in, a relationship?" question is settled, but the other of some significance isn't around all the time (but around enough, IYKWIM). This does not mean, of course, that they won't find themselves on the investment side of the asymmetric ledger at some point.
199: I sound perfect for him!
197: What's the difference between "defending" and "understanding"?
I guess my addition to the OP is a comment on the possibility that it is not merely overlookable if the woman is nonfunctional in some key way, but it may in fact be a pretty big turn on. I think a lot of guys like getting spanked and yelled at. I have been explicitly dumped on a nontrivial number of occasions because I did not scream about something, and I was therefore perceived to be apathetic about the relationship or spineless or something. While I probably am in many ways apathetic about relationships, I would like to think that it is possible to be invested in a relationship without texting every 30 seconds to demand to know where the guy is, or screaming about the guy getting the wrong pizza topping, or freaking out at him for being five minutes late for a date. I'm not sure where the line is.
The "am I looking for, or going to be in, a relationship?" question is settled, but the other of some significance isn't around all the time (but around enough, IYKWIM).
Right, but people for whom this aspect overwhelms the strain of being apart most of the time are generally those who are less invested in the relationship. (This is the position I was in when I did this. It seemed great at the time.)
204: Right, that's what I meant. Or I guess implied since I didn't say so outright.
And of course it can be a huge turn-on when a man is nonfunctional, let's not forget. People are perverse. As much as they think ridiculous things about standards and rankings and excellence, most of us don't go around choosing for ourselves the most excellent person we know.
207:
Problems with dating the most excellent person I knew, at various points in time:
1) I've done it, and then screwed things up through some massive failures to behave decently on my part, and then things were awkward with the most excellent person I knew for a while. We're OK now, though. I think.
2) Sometimes I am good friends with the most excellent person I know (or if not good friends, at least friends) and am terrified of jeopardizing that even a little bit, because (a) I really don't want things to get weird with the most excellent person I know, and (b) who wants to get rejected by the most excellent person? It means that everyone else would reject you too if only they had more insight and more excellence, better not to know. (I don't endorse (b), but it was definitely what I felt.)
3) I worry that I really just think someone is most excellent because I'm physically attracted to them, and if I dated them I'd soon be disillusioned, and who wants that?
4) In some cases I could predict with some reasonable certainty that I was not relationship-compatible (for religious/lifestyle reasons) with the most excellent person I knew.
But mainly I was just a coward and should have done rejection therapy when I was in high school instead of now, and should have learned how to actually ask for what I want so I can get a yes or no answer and move on.
In at least one case I have no excuse and should have asked her out. (She has a boyfriend now, so I'm not continuing to offend against reason and self-interest by my inaction.)
I actually decided to pursue my current girlfriend on the grounds of general excellence, and it's worked out quite well. So there's that.
teal deer: Excellent people are terrifying if you have low self-esteem, but that doesn't always mean they're not what one really wants in one's heart of hearts.
I will date the next woman to win the [nth] Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence.
I actually decided to pursue my current girlfriend on the grounds of general excellence
Just say "great tits" like a normal guy. General excellence sounds like that episode of King of the Hill where Hank gives Peggy a card thanking her for years of great service.
210 is an excellent method of contraception.
211: Problem is that the excellent people I've known have been excellent in quite different ways. (Some in what they've done or their talents, some in their virtues (kindness, courage, discipline), some in their intellect (people who regularly get me to change my mind).
I do feel bad using such a vague term, but I have no better one.
213, 214: don't take this the wrong way, but you're kinda creeping me out.
I think equal investment is absolutely necessary for long-distance relationships. That way, you don't feel bad when you send an exploratory text when your partner isn't about when you thought they'd be, or whatever, because they'd do the same. Clinginess is fun when you're both doing it. (Though 30 + texts and demands to skype during a friend's get-together is insane. Then again, I also think it's insane to be sleeping with lots of people when your partner presumably thinks you're being monogamous.*)
*Obviously making a big assumption there.
some in their intellect (people who regularly get me to change my mind).
I too am susceptible to the persuasiveness of a great rack.
215: I can see how it's weird - would be very thankful if you could point out anything specific that's creepy over and above being generally unusual.
217: Sometimes it's the rebuttal.
218 -- sorry, that was even more dickish than my usual dickishness. Didn't mean to sound so insulting. The individual words make sense, but taken together there's a kind of ... Pedestal placing? Self abasement? Applying some external standard in a kind of inhuman way? I dunno. I mean, I think the people I've been with are pretty excellent, but, you know, they were also just in a relationship with me and the notion that I somehow selected them for "excellence" is just kinda, um, weird? I can't really put my figure on why. Maybe I just want you to talk about tits like a normal guy.
192: My current relationship has the potential to turn into that exact situation, with me being the less interested party. I find the idea profoundly disturbing. I wonder if that means I'm more invested than I thought.
I get what you're saying, I think. I didn't take it as an insult so much as a learning opportunity. It is really hard to talk about virtue in a serious way without coming across as stuck-up or worse, so this is a domain where it's easy for me to be receptive to feedback on how I come across.
When I'm thinking about a specific person I don't use concepts like "general excellence." I certainly don't talk about it. There's really no such one thing, and it is kind of inhuman to reduce the diversity of human character to a single quantity. But how else to describe the fact that one person has virtue A which I like, and another has unrelated virtue B which I like, and I've obviously made some sort of implicit ordinal comparison by preferring one to the other?
I'm happiest with someone whom I don't strictly dominate in every dimension. This implies that she should have me beat in at least one virtue (and vice versa). Which means that in some domains I will believe that my judgment is inferior, and vice versa.
203: it is not merely overlookable if the woman is nonfunctional in some key way, but it may in fact be a pretty big turn on.
"May," madam? I know not "may."
I mean, I've never dumped someone for being Not Crazy Enough, strictly speaking. On the other hand, in my early twenties I dated a woman who was everything I then believed I wanted in a woman -- lovely, sweet, generous, gentle, good in bed, into geeky things -- and discovered I was simply bored, and broke up with her after coming as close as it's possible to come to the verge of cheating without actually cheating. So while I was not necessarily looking for craziness per se, I was certainly not looking for something normal either.
I also dated someone who gave me a pass after I came home to her with scratches on my back from an illicit encounter. And I was weirded out that she let that go. So maybe that was an example of Not Crazy Enough, sort of, except I waited for her to break up with me months later.
On the other hand, actual crazy isn't attractive either. What's apparently ideal is a woman who is crazy enough to Need The Help of a Knight In Shining Armor (and to be quirky and unusual or even wild and unpredictable), but isn't quite crazy enough to throw drinks (or knives, or pots and pans) at you. That perfect balance of Not-Quit-Crazy is, it turns out, uncommon.
221: Mixed up in all this is my deep regret and sadness at the irreversibility of the arrow of time and the irrecoverability of the past, which is not a fixable problem nor something that pertains to one relationship or one person in particular.
And the fact that out of the countless lives I could have led, I only get one.
226: Screw that. I'm reincarnating.
Also, this may be the most I've overshared on Unfogged since telling the story of my bailing-my-date-out-of-jail date.
If one has read widely in the Eroticon of the amorous Greek, Yoryis Yatromanolakis, the phrase "the verge of cheating" cannot fail to amuse one.
49: Part of what I was wondering is if all the men would rise up as one and say "No, that's exactly wrong, you've got the sexes flipped."
I don't think it's wrong, I just think it can be stated a lot more bluntly and unpleasantly: men are looking for sex, women are looking for a business deal. (These are both (equally?) cold-blooded in their own way.) (And what says so? A couple of decades of talking to women, an unusual (for a guy) habit of perusing the chickporn mags, and an unusual (?) amount of time listening to women online kvetch about the opposite sex, plus probably entirely too much time watching whatever dating site as a disinterested (seriously) observer.) Such a commonplace observation, greatly derided by one and all, yadda yadda, and so anyways, here we are.
OP: Good reasons -- he's crazy in some sort of undesirable way, or without meaning to, he's actively avoiding getting close to women he might be interested in. Less good reasons -- he's short, or broke or something.
'Good men are hard to find!' Or, as I'm sure the evo-devo crowd would say, men go to extremes, so they're either trying to be Fabio*, or the dude that just got out of the cooler, and is going to hit up his dealer before heading for the clubs. Thus:
71: being in a relationship with a fucked up man was likely to be much more scary for a woman
You've never been in a relationship with an insane woman. Or a Not Relationship with an insane woman. I am guessing. I am certain men wind up in jail a lot more than women do, but as far as I can tell, that doesn't mean women are less insane as group. Far from it, as far as I have ever seen. Better at keeping it in bounds in terms of the law (maybe not the bin, definitely not the dysfunctional family circus).
OP: This works out so that giant flaws aren't romantically disqualifying for women in the same way they are for men
That's the tripwire for the deployment of 'reasonably objective' standard. I expect there IS a common standard that tends to be shared among women (whether because it is culturally inculcated or it's a byproduct of the veldt), since after all there are Bridezillas, and Modern Bride and what have you (since marriage ceremonies are about the least romantic thing I could ever conceive of short of assault and battery - a stiffly-conducted anal-retentive formal religious ritual involving standing in front of a bunch of old people you don't like all that much, just so the old man can unload his 'property' without the neighbors complaining? Really?) ('Oh, baby, let's skip all that crap and run away to New York and set up a jointly partnered 'S' Corporation with a buyout option! We can invest our income in the company and use it as a tax shelter, plus if we have to bail on the house, we won't have the default on our credit rating!' 'Oh, dahling!'). I am, per gswift, pretty sure there is a set of common standards popular with lots of men: stacked like a brick shit house, can suck the chrome off a bumper, cooks like mom (or more creepily IS like mom). That that's kinda shallow, and is disreputable, doesn't change the fact that it's a standard and not uncommon, and I'm pretty sure most men will understand the standard.
So having wandered through that in my head, I am thinking that I am not seeing much real distinction between 'target' and 'standard'. Except in the sense that the world is divided between two kinds of people: people who divide the world into two kinds of people and those that don't.
max
['Sorry, the whole concept kind of went to pieces in my hands.']
* "Dude, Fabio is like a 147!" "Dude! Totally, but he was like on the cover of every romance novel printed between 1987 and 1995! A male underwear model with a name!" "Dude! That was like forever ago!" "But, Dude, now he looks like George Hamilton but mummified, and he still wanders in here and there as uncredited model, maybe minus the mane, even though the middle era Post-Feminism Old School Bourgeois Bodice Ripper cover has sorta, but not entirely, gone out of style. I am thinking the cover artists are sorta bored by all these guys you see in the perfume commercials." "Nobody reads that crap, man." "Ever wandered past the book and magazine aisle at Walmart? Headshots of virginesque women in wedding gear about four places left from the mags with the chicks in swim suits with huge racks and lots of tattoos on shiny large motorcycles! Granted, vaguely evil undead dudes are the shining knights of yesterday's future, but c'mon.'
... the coupled-up guys would be generally more desirable on a set of fairly simple standards: ability to interact pleasantly in ordinary social situations, capacity to support themselves financially, generally being functional.
Women: a force for social conformity.
230:In the early 80s, Reagan years and living around Republicans, I develop an entire taxonomy around civilization coding feminine and culture coding masculine.
Conversation feminine literature masculine. Stuff like that. It would go over great here. It may have only applied to the environment I was in, but I found remarkable just how little the husbands actually controlled and determined in the quotidian spaces I saw.
231 was me
Shit, I suppose it was all misogynistic to notice that the men couldn't even choose their own underwear.
I am much better now, and blaming the Patriarchy.
If someone doesn't post a link to the story mentioned in 227, I may never be happy again.
Benquo's use of "general excellence" struck me as kinda sweet.
227: The past is still irrevocable and irrecoverable.
233: http://www.unfogged.com/archives/comments_6798.html#548256
The video is 237 is really hard (maybe impossible?) to watch. I had to click away and just listen, but I came back in time to see Jim Carrey shaking with tears as he finishes fantasizing about marrying Emma Stone, with whom he is in love.
I'm pretty sure it's a joke. "I have lines on my face, sometimes a little gray in my beard, and it takes me a lot longer to pee."
As someone mentions in comments there, one does want it to be a joke, but Jim Carrey is not particularly known for subtlety in jokes. I really hope it's a joke. I can just as easily see that as a goofy romantic-comedy trope--I know I'm not your dream man, but I'll love you so well, etc. By 2pm his publicist will tell us it is a joke.
Even if it's a joke -- which, given how over the top it is, I think it must be -- it's shitty to drag Emma Stone into it. NOT OKAY.
I will tell myself it's a viral marketing thing for a new Charlie Kaufman movie about Jim Carrey (as Jim Carrey) losing his shit and falling desperately, horribly in love with Emma Stone (played by Emma Stone).
I will join that other guy in the shower. Seems simplest.
Jim Carrey struck me as kinda sweet.
Twitter: Yes, my msg to Emma Stone was a comedy routine and the funniest part is that everything i said is tru.
246 is about what I figured was going on. In that case, definitely creepy.
Jim Carrey struck me as kinda sweet.
pathetic
lecherous
full of white male privilege.
That all of those things are the joke is exactly the problem. Hahaha isn't it hilarious that an old guy went on the internet and talked about how sexually attractive you are?
248: Just ftr, I was echoing 234 in what I hoped was a humorous manner. Also, I sort of assume Stone is in on it.
I sort of assume Stone is in on it
Yeah, me too.
29: Now I really would feel offended if I weren't already feeling perplexed.
If she's not in on it, we'll never know, because she'll have to play along like it's funny.
252 is exactly right. "I'm flattered."
248: the first two I can see, but what is this "white male privilege" thing? Everybody gets to fantasize about everybody else and talk about it if they want, it's not a privilege. Then other people get to say they're pathetic. This is all in the first amendment.
Sorry, I hate the "privilege" language generally.
Male privilege, but not white male privilege. Also, I don't see anyone suggesting that Jim Carrey is breaking the law by trying to make Emma Stone's life awkward and/or miserable.
my friend is a pig. He has been sleeping with a lot of other women the whole time he's conducting this relationship, without her knowledge
Well then no wonder she's calling him 30 times a day. She shouldn't be blamed for it -- it's absolutely crazy-making to have someone running around on you while blandly saying everything is OK.
258: Never mind all that - pigs can talk?!?!?!
257: last I noticed women get to talk about men too. Anyway, like I said I never liked this rhetoric of "privilege" -- it's prissy and authoritarian.
258: The main issue, I think, is that guys like this seem to seek out women who are really uptight about monogamy because they get off on jealousy. My roommate was doing this--screwing around a lot while the main girl he was seeing grew increasingly insane, to the point that she showed up at our house a month after they broke up, screaming and threatening to fight me and my other (female) roommate because she thought he was fucking us. While we were the only people who he wasn't fucking, it still wasn't particularly cool to be threatened with physical harm over a relationship in which no one was ever promised monogamy.
but what is this "white male privilege" thing?
So, you don't think it would be harder for a black comedian to pull this off?
coming as close as it's possible to come to the verge of cheating without actually cheating
If not hyperbole, this seems like it would necessarily involve an uncommonly precise definition of "cheating". It would be very difficult to come up with a defintion of cheating robust enough that someone couldn't think of some way you could have toed even closer to the line without actually crossing it. (Unless you've got a truly fantastic story.)
Also, I don't see anyone suggesting that Jim Carrey is breaking the law
Of course not. One can do a lot of shitty things -- especially ones supported by privilege! (yup, used the word again) -- without breaking the law.
262: I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing. It would be harder for a black comedian to post a Youtube video?
A black comedian could post a youtube video just as easily. But the tone of the entire thing could easily come off quite differently.
I think it would be pretty much the same if a black comedian was talking about a black woman.
How many of the current young Hollywood ingénues are black?
The tone would vary depending on the comedian. A Tracy Morgan version would be very different than a Dave Chapelle version. For that matter, Wanda Sykes doing a video about Daniel Radcliffe: also imaginable, would be very different. Or Tina Fey/Taylor Lautner.
I get the feeling the main difference with Jim Carrey is that he's actually an accomplished dramatic actor in addition to being a comedian and so is better able to walk the serious/not serious line here.
271.1: Absolutely.
And I think the serious/not serious line straddling is what has me so riled up here. I just can't find the whole thing funny, yet I feel like it also isn't really in the service of some larger point.
I would point out that Jim Carrey is also the guy who was chosen to portray Andy Kaufman, whose comedy purposefully left a lot of people riled up as well. And was the genius of his work, really.
I don't know. I feel like if Andy Kaufman were doing this now, it would be a video to Gabourey Sibide, for what it's worth. It would be worse in a lot of ways, but also more obviously confrontational and less sentimental.
A comedian pledging his love to a much-to-young overweight actress? I don't see how that could go wrong.
more obviously confrontational
Also more obvious and so less effective. I was going to say that if you really wanted to up the squirm factor, you'd use teen actress X, but then I realized the only teen actresses I can name are all adults now.
Wait, Dakota Fanning is still 17. So there's one.
Also more obvious and so less effective.
Effective at what? Sowing confusion?
What is the goal here?
So it doesn't seem like it makes things worse that Jim Carrey is a rich, powerful (but fading) Hollywood player? I mean, even if it's just a joke, it's a power play. He's getting a shitload of press over making her sexuality into a creepy, very dryly played joke, and she is essentially forced to play along. If it was, like, Norm MacDonald it wouldn't be nearly as bad, because Emma Stone has a lot more clout than Norm MacDonald and could badmouth him or laugh along, at her option. Also, it would probably be really funny, but that's neither here nor there.
||
NYers, are you all about to be washed out to sea? This is a bit early in the year, n'est-ce-pas?
|>
Nobody ever worries about the New Englanders. Fine!
I believe the North Carolinians are actually first in line.
I spent an hour thinking about Laura Nakadate last night.
Truth, discovered her via the American Intellectual History Blog.
Which in this context, and the context of LN's work, I think is a funny way to put it.
She also might be on topic.
What about Virginians?!?!? Earthquakes! Hurricanes coming! Jim Carrey videos! Pat Robertson!
The end in near!
The place where parody of a thing becomes indistinguishable from just being that thing can be interesting. But I don't find this instance particularly interesting. What do we learn, what sort of insight do we get? Is it funny? If so, why/how? (Serious questions.) And is it possible to pull this off without Emma Stone basically ending up as the butt of the joke, for all the reasons Tweety mentions above?
Nobody ever worries about the New Englanders. Fine!
I didn't know hurricanes ever went so far north. I only realised NY was in the way because Beyerstein was tweeting about it. Is it set to run all the way up the coast then?
279: I don't know why I'm arguing this* because I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other, but does Jim Carrey have more clout than her at this point? He only has one movie credit in the past two years, and that's Mr. Popper's Penguins.
*Actually, I'm mostly just avoiding dealing with a pain-in-the-ass project.
I haven't watched it yet, but is Stone the butt of the joke? From the descriptions so far it sounds like the focus is on Carrey (as usual) and his pathetic state.
Of course, it is very clearly said that Laura Nakadate can "get away" with very edgy discomforting sexual/gender humor that a guy could not. If she does get away with it.
If Carrey is in LN's art class or at her level, or seen her work, or is willing to play with the rules as hard as she does. It would surprise me if Carrey decided to take a Andy Kaufmann/Laura Nakadate turn, say after Joaquin Phoenix piece of performance art, but wouldn't shock me.
And if Carrey continued to gently "stalk" Emma, it might as powerful a public message helping victims of stalkers and fighting the objectification of actresses and women as anything I can imagine.
I havent watched it so my comments, as always, are uninformed.
But, why does she deserve or need some special protection? She is a celebrity, and, thus, open for mocking.
It could be assholish, yet funny or interesting.
Of course, if Carrey isnt funny or make it interesting in same manner, then he is just an ass. Isnt that the risk he takes?
Likewise, as a celebrity, she is open for mocking or praise as to how she handles it.
Isnt this the stuff of celebrities? From what I can tell, a gizillion magazines (People, US Weekly, etc) exist to mock or praise based on stupid reasons
286: it will make secondary landfall someplace between maryland and cape cod, but that's about all they know right now.
286: We don't get real hurricanes often, but it's a possibility -- the last one I recall really hitting us was Gloria in 86, and it wasn't much.
A major hurricane that hit at just the spot would be a major disaster, though, I believe.
Headline:"Carrey gets thirty days in jail for violating restraining order and hiding in starlet's closet."
No, Stone doesn't have to be in on it.
Funny? No, maybe, Steve Martin told you comedy was not pretty.
I don't think Carrey has the guts.
Learn more about New York/New England getting fucked by hurricanes on the internet!
The storms travel north fairly frequently, but they're rarely still hurricane strength by the time they hit up there. Because the Carolinas stick out like a big chin waiting to be punched, we tend to get first landfall of anything that's going to go that far north and wind it down first. Also, colder water=less stormfuel.
What do we learn, what sort of insight do we get?
No opinion on whether the video is funny (haven't watched it), but does it need to have a point?
I mean, what was the point of most of Andy Kaufmann's stuff other than simply to make people uncomfortable?
Jim Carrey actually isn't Andy Kaufman.
I mean, as far as we know.
But really, if Andy Kaufman had also starred completely unironically in mainstream comedies for children (and so on), you don't think some of his weirder comedy would read differently?
but does it need to have a point?
Gross lechery for its own sake! The world definitely needs more of that.
280: This is a bit early in the year, n'est-ce-pas?
Not all that early; but it has been an active season for named storms (all tropical storms until now, though) and it is unusual to get to the "I"s in August (2005 was similar, already at Katrina by the end of August). By contrast Hurricane Andrew was mid-late August in 1992. Early was Agnes hitting in June. Historical chart of storm frequency by month--August slightly above October for 2nd most.
she is essentially forced to play along.
I don't think so. She could for instance arrange to have herself photographed tomorrow kissing someone who is not Jim Carrey to respond very effectively (and profitably to her) without saying a word. It's true that if she's indifferent she's obligated to respond or play along, which would be obnoxious, but she's not in Monica Lewinsky's position.
Also, exploiting publicity for power is definitely an equal-opportunity ploy, not limited to men. Kate Gosselin is a female example, I think.
@299
I understand objecting to a performance artish stunt like this because of the gross lechery aspect.
It's the objecting because it's not teaching us some sort of lesson that I don't follow, e.g. What do we learn, what sort of insight do we get?
LauraNakadateLauraNakadateLauraNakadate
I mean you hip East Coasters had to know her ten years before I did.
Somebody said her point is that "everybody is either an exhibitionist or a voyeur"
Are you all stalking Emma Stone? If it is just her work, why are we talking about this? Will you read the next article about Carrey and Stone?
Not me, I got about 5 minutes into Easy A and turned it off. I wouldn't recognize her from a picture.
LauraNakadateLauraNakadateLauraNakadate
Laurel.
||
Someone you all know very well was the first choice to play Marcus Bachmann in this morning's festivities.
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/08/gay_barbarian_flash_mob_bachmann_and_associates.php
||>
Those who haven't watched it, you should. It's not very long, and it is definitely weird.
(But he had too many other commitments this week, so they went with some other schmoe.)
I mean you hip East Coasters had to know her ten years before I did.
My first introduction to Nakadate was in this (great) Art Thoughtz clip. "Did you forget your Ray-Bans?"
298: But really, if Andy Kaufman had also starred completely unironically in mainstream comedies for children
For example, suppose he had been a major cast member on a prime time sitcom like Taxi?
Sifu, I am disappoint.
292: the last one I recall really hitting us was Gloria in 86, and it wasn't much.
I happened to be out near the tip of Long Island in Sag Harbor during Gloria. A pretty decent blow out there (a lot of trees down), but it weakened appreciably even as it was passing over so by the end of it we joined everyone else in walking around the streets pointing at stuff. At the height of it the 95-year-old woman across the street (who had been regaling us with tales of the significant damage from the 1938 hurricane which Tweety linked) opened her front door and appeared to wave a cloth. My brother-in-law serpentined over there and then back a few minutes later. She had been dusting.
It's the objecting because it's not teaching us some sort of lesson that I don't follow, e.g. What do we learn, what sort of insight do we get?
That was a pretty ham-handed way for me to put it. I guess I was talking about things learned in a rather broad sense, like 'Oh, that's what it looks like for someone to eat a giant raw onion,' or 'That was really weird to stand so close to a naked guy I don't know.' It's the banality of 'old guy leches on young ingénue' that's part of what's galling.
309: you're disappointed that I don't see the obvious comparisons between being a secondary player (you know, the weird one) on a network sitcom with a reputation for gritty oddness and being one of Hollywood's most bankable marquee stars for over a decade?
I... find myself unable to assuage said disappointment.
Taxi was as mainstream as comedy gets, come off it.
@311
So it lacks the kind of absurdism that marks the better examples of this sort of thing (like A. Kaufmann's, for instance) because old guys perving on women half their age isn't uncommon enough to strike anyone as especially strange.
OK, I'll buy that.
314: so Bronson Pinchot, Jim Carrey, pretty much the same as far as Hollywood clout goes?
Andy Kaufman died at 35. Jim Carrey is almost 50. I am not sure why this seems significant to me, but it does.
OK, I just watched it. I think it's clearly intended as parody, unkind to both subject and object of desire. I believe that the intentional self-humiliation is what's intended to be funny.
There were a number of episodes of Taxi, definitely an ensemble comedy, which centered on Latka, whom AK played straight. I don't see the salary history anywhere, but AK was not peripheral.
It will be less banal if he gets publicly and repeatedly rejected.
If Carrey does go with actionable stalking, his high profile and power position, like Phoenix's. would be a major part of the point. It would make it news.
I went to IMDB, and Carrey doesn't have any work in pre or post production, or shooting. Very unusual.
Not that he needs the fucking money.
Rather a hurricane than breathing fucking Idaho.
Jeff Conaway was pretty much the Harrison Ford of his day. Well, except for the actual Harrison Ford. And also all the other people who were far, far bigger stars than Jeff Conaway but still not (unlike Harrison Ford) ever going to be listed in anybody's list of "most bankable stars".
317: Your argument was about unironically starring in things mainstream, not "Hollywood clout," which at any rate would seem an even sillier argument.
Gross lechery for its own sake! The world definitely needs more of that.
it kinda does.
(At any rate, Kaufman was ten times more "bankable" as a comedy star than Bronson Pinchot will ever be. I think it's completely bizarre to argue that "bankability" or "clout" somehow nullify the ability to do parody. If anything, the reverse is surely true.)
I am extremely surprised that Carrey should be so bankable.
JC is not on the most recent list, which is the only one that matters. She is in hugely expensive movies for the next several years, clearly has more power than him today. If she's not in on the joke and is irritated enough to respond, I think that she could badly damage his future work life with either public or private action.
Also, Irrfan Khan, who was extremely good in Billu will be in the next spiderman!
So it lacks the kind of absurdism that marks the better examples of this sort of thing (like A. Kaufmann's, for instance) because old guys perving on women half their age isn't uncommon enough to strike anyone as especially strange.
But old guys being publicly open about the fact that they're perving on women half their age, and seeming aware of the absurdity of it, is relatively uncommon. If it weren't uncommon, I don't think so many people would be talking about it.
Is the clip work-safe? I haven't watched it, because I wasn't sure.
Ok, I finally watched it, and I'm a little surprised there was any question about its seriousness. He pulls out the chin quiver, he mouths "I love you", he shakes himself awake after losing himself in thoughts of sex. He is acting.
He is acting.
Haven't watched the clip in question, but I have seen Carrey in movies and, if he was acting, I find it bewildering that anyone could have not been aware of that. It's not like he's really talented or something.
Is the clip work-safe?
Completely, yes.
Probably no one remembers that Jim Carrey asked a random woman in the audience when he hosted SNL? Apparently he has an ongoing schtick about how pathetic and desperate he is since Jenny McCarthy dumped him. Or maybe he always has joked about being desperate for a woman? I haven't exactly followed his career closely.
Okay, enough for me. It's fun to be the only dude siding with the women, though. Might get me laid!
331: He's pretty good, imunculturedo, in dramatic roles like Man on the Moon and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I would describe him in this video as doing a subdued comedic performance.
329: SFW, and fairly tame.
333: I left out "to marry him" in the first sentence. Or else maybe I meant to write "proposed to" instead of "asked".
It is freaky that Carrey has no work in production. Penguins has already turned a profit, it isn't as if he isn't bankable.
Why Emma Stone? I looked through her credits and decided I didn't like her. If I were super edgy Carrey, friend of the Wayans, The Help might provide me with a target. Yecch.
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that this was a quick publicity stunt to transfer some of Carrey's fading celebrity to Stone, the rising star.
It's not like he's really talented or something.
I actually think he's quite a good actor. In many of his movies he's incredibly annoying, but that's a separate question.
He is acting.
Having now watched it, yes, that's obvious, in that he is clearly aware of the video's absurdity, and is conveying that awareness. But it's not clear that he's not, like, a genuine fan of hers.
I agree with everyone above who thought the joke is obviously meant to be 100% on him. She's not the butt of the joke.
It is freaky that Carrey has no work in production.
He's signed on for the Mr Popper's Penguins sequel in 2013.
I'm actually disappointed by how tame the video was. Now I want to see an obviously drunk Norm Macdonald hitting on Miley Cyrus.
343: that would obviously be hilarious.
She's not the butt of the joke.
In that he's not making fun of her, but Carrey gets to play both sides ("I'm joking... but not!"), while she's the one getting objectified, the one whose life is being riffed on in his stupid fantasy. She can ignore it, or tell an interviewer that it was funny and she was flattered, or make a very public appearance with an age-appropriate guy tomorrow. But she can't not be involved in it.
334 might have hurt your odds.
Naww. Raging against the patriarchy is sexy!
What I wonder is if Jim Carrey has a real self and an acting self that are different. WTF is up with all his stupid Tweets wishing everyone love? Like, sure, maybe it's an "act," but at what point do you have to say, no, these are real things a real person really said, and however you interpret them, they're still being said, not through the mask of a character.
347: That's some of what I was trying to get to in 285. Potential for being interesting!
She can ignore it, or tell an interviewer that it was funny and she was flattered, or make a very public appearance with an age-appropriate guy tomorrow. But she can't not be involved in it.
She can ignore it, but she can't not be involved in it? I mean, yes, her name was mentioned. Is that what you mean by "invovled in it"? That seems pretty harmless, and an inevitable part of fame--something any celebrity must have long grown used to.
As for "or tell an interviewer that it was funny and she was flattered", what about "or tell an interviewer she thought it was a little creepy, or tell an interviewer she hopes he wasn't serious, or that he was serious, or whatever the hell her honest reaction to it was. I don't get what consequence for her your imagining here. Carrey is so powerful that it's she doesn't play nice in return he'll crush her career?
338:Female lead in Spidey reboot, followed by female lead beside Sean Penn, Josh Brolin, and Gosling
She doesn't need any help. She is in as good a position as she could be, for an actress her age. She'll compete for anything after these.
She could have gone Anna Faris comedy or arty indie, but she went for the A-list. A millionaire already, even if she fades in five years and gets a tv series, her life is set.
I ain't gonna worry about her.
She can ignore it... But she can't not be involved in it.
?
349 -- It's not whether Carrey himself can crush her. There are other 50 year old men in positions of power over one project or another who can be charmed or alienated by how she responds. Her people have to think about what to do, if anything, which does make it an imposition. Even if a fairly modest one.
Either there isn't a subtle, secret Jim Carrey constructing a persona as part of an elaborate joke, or that subtle, secret Jim Carrey is the greatest performance artist the world has ever known, with his marriage to Jenny McCarthy as his masterwork.
My money's on Jim Carrey being a rich, powerful, depressed, desperately needy lech who can't figure out why people like his terrible, terrible comedy but has at least figured out that he can say just about anything and people will think he's trying to be funny. That a few smart directors have figured out how to harness his excruciatingly evident grasping need for attention does not make him a brilliant, subversive comedy mind.
LauraNakadateLauraNakadateLauraNakadate
I hadn't heard of her but I appreciate this answer and the first article that I found about her:
BLVR: Why is it that you are usually either playing dead or wearing very little clothes?
LN: The lack-of-clothes thing is about putting myself in an embarrassing, disarming situation. If I'm barely dressed in these videos, (a) it makes them a little bit dirty, (b) it makes them a little bit pathetic, and (c) it disarms people to the point where they think that I am not going to be able to control any situation and am probably pretty vulnerable, which nine times out of ten I turn it around so that I might be the one half-dressed but I'm not going to be the underdog.
I don't know that I think that's a good project, but it makes clear what the project is.
I don't get what consequence for her your imagining here.
Look, I don't think this is going to have any effect on her career. I don't think there needs to be any law about this. I don't think Emma Stone needs 'protection'. But jesus people, is it that far a leap to see that it is sucky to be singled out for this particular kind of objectification? And yes, you have to expect it as an actress, but that doesn't mean 1) that it's not a bit different when a fellow actor who's older and more famous than you does it, and 2) that it isn't still shitty, whoever does it.
On preview, what Charley said in 352, as well.
353.2 is exactly how this video struck me.
It's not like he's really talented or something.
Best physical comedian in the last 20 years, maybe since Jerry Lewis.
It's different because she is more powerful than he is today. She stars, he does voices; if she wants to retaliate privately, I do not think think that it would be difficult for her to do that.
Either she's in on the joke or he's unhinged enough that he'll self-destruct very quickly.
I'm on the fence about whether or not it's transgressive. The earnestness and patheticness seems transgressive. Lusting after a young starlet and wanting to escape forever and ever with her seems unoriginal and irritating.
It's different because she is more powerful than he is today.
This is just nonsense. It really is.
he's unhinged enough that he'll self-destruct very quickly.
This, on the other hand, is certainly possible.
Also, there's no way that she's in on the joke, IMO.
This is just nonsense.
Why do you say this?
354:More complicated than that, and I don't have to accept her interpretation. Two opposing views
a) Comedy of cruelty? Do we feel sorry for these lecherous schlubs, even a little bit?
b) Every sex worker claims to be in control of the situation, don't they? I think her deconstructions are still on the terms of the Patriarchy.
In all likelihood 23-year-old Emma Stone is a bit more famous today than she was yesterday, especially among older demographics. If I were her publicist I wouldn't be feeling too bad today.
Once I watched it, I was actually bothered most by him saying something like "If I was younger I would marry you".
More on Nakadate:
Is it even a comedy of cruelty? Are we actually supposed to hate and despise the millions of loser schlubs with venterfolds and videotapes? Life can suck if you're not pretty like Nakadate. Are they gonna get laid every night in the liberated world?
Who are we looking at in the videos? We have plenty of opportunities to see pretty young girls, less to see despairing loser schlubs? Who is being objectified? Not Nakadate.
Or is she creating a mirror for the audience, we are in age when reality tv provides us a constant theatre of objectification and cruelty.
We might usefully compare Nakadate's work with that of Spencer Tunick, and think about who we identify with and which is "liberating"
361: because the way Hollywood works does not include 22-year-old ingenues -- even 22-year-old ingenues who are having a great deal of success -- having a lot of power. The people who have power are either old white dudes who work at studios, somewhat less old dudes with a proven track record of starring in blockbuster movies (the irrelevance of that to future success notwithstanding), and occasionally very-well-established (but still young-looking) female stars with a proven track record of starring in blockbuster movies. And also Oprah. Emma Stone is fabulously successful right now, but if she stopped playing ball you would stop seeing her in movies.
262 isn't really right, but not exactly wrong either. I haven't watched the video yet but I'm sure that both Carey and Stone's agents would be glad that we're talking about them.
367.
Jodie Foster is an example of the career trajectory enumerated here:
http://www.amazon.com/Actresses-Turned-Producer-Directors-3/dp/B004RA42M6
I meant "367", not "262." As to "power" it can mean a bunch of different things. Stone is a way better investment as an actress right now and will therefore work more, but Carey would certainly get a bigger share of the gross and an overall better participation in whatever movie he's in. Who has more "power"? Hard to say.
Moreover, neither Robin Williams nor Eddie Murphy nor Steve Martin have any power. The only televised old comedians I can think of are Rodney Dangerfield and Benny Hill.
370: it's a simplification, but at the moment Carrey's participation is likely to be more key to any project he's involved in than Stone's is to any project she's involved in. That may very well not be true for long, which to my mind only makes the whole thing skeevier.
Moreover, neither Robin Williams nor Eddie Murphy nor Steve Martin have any power.
They don't? Not compared to Oprah or Jusin Bieber, but I'm guessing any of those three could get a movie made.
The only televised old comedians I can think of are Rodney Dangerfield and Benny Hill.
Both less powerful, since they died.
BY KILLING ME, YOU MAKE ME STRONGER THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE
Any one of 15 women can replace Ms. Stone in any project, and no audience member will care at all. Mr. Carrey is a unique "talent" a specific bankable quantity.
Why I don't give a fuck about Stone-Carrey.
Here we go again, the elites worry for trickle-down social progress, as if whether the A-list actresses getting 1 million a year for ten years or 10 million a year directly translates into real improvement for the hundreds to thousands of working stiffs doing walk-ons, bits, or lasting careers in b-movies and tv series.
What does Emma Stone's power or lack of it mean to Lizzy Caplan or Elizabeth Moss? Evidence so far? Nothing. There hundreds of "just jobs" in film and tv and I try to give no compassion to the freaking millonaires.
And the history pretty much stands, the male actors don't start making a living til they're 30 and are out at 60. Women start making money at twenty and are out at 45. Life sucks for athletes too.
And very few of either make much money at all
I'd never heard of Emma Stone until this thread, for whatever that's worth.
Back on the hurricane tip, anybody interested in learning more about the hurricane of '38 should watch this documentary, which is fairly amazing.
Carrey's participation is likely to be more key to any project he's involved in than Stone's is to any project she's involved in.
That's true, but Carey's involvement (the word "participation" has a distinct meaning in this context) is not really sufficient to get anything made right now regardless.
The way we view the film/tv industry is also weird, as if the old guys in suits are totally responsible for making stars and careers. There are hundreds of jobs, thousands of artists, and the guys in suits would rather make money than be assholes.
I don't lose sleep at night blaming the Patriarchy for Debbie Harry or Suzanne Vega not having number one hits this year.
372, 375. Maybe, I don't know how casting decisions get made. But isn't JC too old to have much pull onscreen today?
I liked him in Eternal Sunshine, but I am apparently an oddball in having a soft spot for him.
I guess I don't much like boiling people down to their demographic representations (old guy vs young gal or whatever). No idea if Ms Stone is clever and ambitious, but there is clearly a way to keep work options open beyond being pretty or funny in front of the camera.
Looking at IMDB suggest that JC isn't that interested in climbing any more but ES is, that's what I meant by "more power."
379: I meant 'participation' in the normal way, and wasn't intentionally referring to your use of the word to mean profit participation. But yes, I agree. I don't think either of them is currently in a place to be able to get a movie made right now. That said, one of them's on the way up and one of them's on the way down, and the one who is on the way down using the one who is on the way up as the (not subject but) object of a joke in order to get a bunch of press is sleazy in a hollywood way, and layering the strange, desperate lechery on top of that is sleazy (or, at least, grody) in the regular way.
I've liked Jim Carrey in lots of movies. That's not the point. Plenty of awesome actors are terrible, terrible people. Shit, plenty of actors who've done awesome, sophisticated jobs of acting here and there are terrible actors.
I guess I see the self-laceration on the video as primary, and the lechery on a level with Rodney Dangerfield's.
In the fields where I know about hiring and reputation, being nice to other people is pretty important to maintaining options, especially people on the way up. So I have a hard time seeing anyone with self-control releasing that video if it's hostile. Maybe JC's lack of new work shows he's lost self-control, time will tell.
381: I liked him in Eternal Sunshine, but I am apparently an oddball in having a soft spot for him.
It wasn't exactly Titanic, but Eternal Sunshine did make $34 million in the US alone. I think there may be a few other "oddballs" out there who like Carrey.
So, you don't think it would be harder for a black comedian to pull this off?
Snoop did it with "Oh Sookie". Of course he was crushing on the character, I guess, rather than the actress.
Ok, I finally watched it, and I'm a little surprised there was any question about its seriousness. He pulls out the chin quiver, he mouths "I love you", he shakes himself awake after losing himself in thoughts of sex. He is acting.
I just watched it. I dont really understand the reactions now.
My impression was that it was a parody of stalker-fan videos. Nothing more. Nothing less.
She benefits from the video by being mentioned.
Yes, having watched the video now, I agree. Half a parody of stalker videos, and half an acting-out, as in portrayal, of what it's like to be on the waning end of a midlife crisis.
If you want a message, or something informative from it, it would be that 49-year-old men (and women) can have a hard time acknowledging that they're not age-appropriate for certain things and people any more, but their hearts and minds are (inappropriately?) young anyway, and it's difficult to let some things go. One way to let it go is through self-mockery.
Emma Stone seems to me to be a place-holder. Of course the fact that I didn't know who she was may contribute to that impression on my part.
The Carrey video is now on Stone's IMDB page. Assuming she wasn't in on the gag, that seems like a massive intrusion to me, and just the sort of thing that Tweety is talking about in this thread. Sure, this might benefit her career, but (again, assuming she wasn't in on the joke), she didn't ask to be the object of Carrey's failed parody, which is certainly much creepier than it is funny. And I don't really understand will's argument that, because she's a star, she's fair game. Legally? Sure. But morally? It isn't clear to me how her stardom makes it okay for a loser like Carrey to inappropriately perv all over her on her in public.
I guess stardom is relative. I still don't really know who Emma Stone is -- she's been in a bunch of movies I've never seen -- but I don't think of Jim Carrey as a loser.
Why he chose her as his place-holder I don't know. Maybe she's really cute or something.
Emma Stone seems to me to be a place-holder.
What a wonderful thing to be!
Speaking of whether Jim Carrey is a loser, did anyone read Bill Simmons's insane post on who is and who isn't a movie star? What crazy nonsense that was.
Ah, here it is. Read it and weep. (FYI, parsi, no matter what you may think, Ryan Gosling is not a movie star. Whether he's a loser, well, that's another story.)
Man, Bill Simmons is such a nimrod/idiot. Nimiot? Idiomrod? Idinimotrod?
In other news I'm really annoyed at myself right now because I'm very close to backing out of a Big Bike Ride Thing I said I would do tomorrow because 1. it's rainy and 2. the tires I was going to ride got stolen off my porch and also 3. I bought these other tires and they were a ripoff and I want to return them but the guy who sold them to me is a jackass and 4. everybody and their fucking brother is saying "wow, you aren't still going to do that, are you?" which is a terrible reason not to do anything.
Who the hell is Ryan Gosling?
Questions like these are why god and Al Gore teamed up to create the Internet and research assistants.
Don't do the ride, Tweety. Long rides in the rain really, really suck a lot. And it sounds like you might be dealing with rain and wind, which is even worse.
Also, what tires were stolen? And what crappy tires did you buy?
And do you need tires? I probably have some nice stuff out in the shed.
make a very public appearance with an age-appropriate guy tomorrow
Searching around trying to figure out if she's working with the same agency as Jim Carrey*, I see that she and some guy I've never heard of who will be starring in some upcoming Spiderman are the subject of gossip about whether or not they're dating. They were photographed together as recently as a week ago. Exciting stuff. Anyway, the guy is with Carrey's agency, but it appears that lots of people are.
(This comment brought to you by a long wait for some files to transfer.)
*answer: I can't figure out who her agent is, but I can find other people trying to figure out who her agent is
Also, what tires were stolen? And what crappy tires did you buy?
Stolen: a pair of Michelin Jet 700x30s
Crappy: a pair of Grand Bois Cyprés 700x30s, bought from the dickhead who imports them, who sent me one that was poorly manufactured to the tune of rubber misaligned 1/8"+ across 5/8ths of the tire and that was pleased to be overseas for a month PBP when I tried to get a warranty replacement (can't return it because I mounted it) and whose assitant said "oh, I'll mention that to [ DICKHEAD ] when he gets back." N.B. NOT HOW TO RUN A FUCKING BUSINESS thanks.
If I may explain, there's no reason I would think he's a movie star, since I hadn't particularly heard of the man. Your 392.final was a non-sequitur which I don't understand. You see. Why would I think Ryan Gosling is a movie star? What are you talking about?
I also learned that some years ago Jim Carrey had more than one movie get shut down for going over budget and not being worth it. Maybe he should get some stimulus money.
402: I don't especially care if you think Ryan Gosling is a movie star, parsimon, any more than I care if Bill Simmons thinks he is. Which, if you read my comment up there carefully, is why I addressed the question to "anyone". Honestly, insofar as I gave your position on the subject any thought at all, I suppose I must have assumed that you had never heard of Ryan Gosling (but, trying to recreate that moment, I'm not really sure I even thought that deeply about your views of Goslingiana). I mean, until this thread you had never heard of Emma Stone. So, yes, for you I'm sure that comment seemed like a non sequitur, but I've always had the sense that you must feel that way about most of the pop culture goings on around here. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you.
401: I've got a pair of Ritchey Speedmax if you want. But I'm pretty sure they're wider (and I know they're knobbier) than the Jets, which are really nice tires -- one of my favorite clinchers, actually, for transitioning between pavement and dirt.
Wait, is D2R2 this weekend? Is that the ride you were going to do?
Wait, is D2R2 this weekend? Is that the ride you were going to do?
Yes.
Ooh! It is this weekend! Yeah, you don't want any part of that in the weather that's coming your way.
So, should I be concerned with this whole hurricane thing? High winds and heavy rain don't seem like a big deal, so mostly I'm just watching to see where it will go. But maybe I should do preparatory shopping. I don't feel like it, though.
Huh. Well, you are making me feel better.
I mean, it's a great ride and all, but it'll be no fun at all in the soup.
409: fill you tub with water, at least. And make sure you have a bunch of candles/flashlights with fresh batteries. Beyond that, if things get really bad, you can always feast on fresh corpses.
393 -- comity! Really, really, comity!
I was sorta thinking that riding 30s and sidepulls on steep downhills in mud wouldn't be terribly fun. Also, that not having any views when I made it up hills would be sorta lame. Also, that eating dinner in a tent in the rain would be less than festive. But I don't know? Maybe I'm just not epic enough.
413: have I ever said differently? I'm merely hurt and offended that you would think of him as typical of a Bostonian.
She benefits from the video by being mentioned.
"Don't be so uptight! It was a compliment!"
I can do the tub. Though it's kind of dirty and also in the basement. I wonder if my landlady has a flashlight in the kitchen somewhere. I'm basically housesitting and I'm leaving in a week. I don't want supplies.
I'm going to be swept away by laziness and cheapskate-ism.
You know, it just occurred to me that there actually could be Boston sports fans who don't feel represented by Simmons and dislike him. Huh. That would really suck.
405: Which, if you read my comment up there carefully, is why I addressed the question to "anyone".
Dude, in 392 you said "FYI, parsi, no matter what you may think, Ryan Gosling is not a movie star."
I see no reference to "anyone", but perhaps you're referring to a different comment. In any event, I've had enough of whatever the fuck you're talking about in this regard.
Oh, wait, yes, you did say "did anyone read Bill Simmons's insane post".
421: you should have some delicious tea, parsimon. Or maybe a snack. That often seems to improve your mood.
423: yes, in the very same comment that made you so upset! Life is full of mysteries, isn't it?
Gosh, I feel like I want to reach a hand of comity across the Boston/LA sports divide. Sifu...my...brother.
Having seen the JC video now, the parodic intent couldn't possibly have been signposted more obviously without Carrey writing "this is a parody" on his forehead in red lipstick. People who were confused on that point need to get their eyesight checked. The argument over whether it's totes sexist to poke parodic fun at creepy sexist pervs is only slightly less moronic. (Sorry Blume, just calling it like I see it.)
Art Thoughtz is like one of the top twenty best things ever on YouTube. Laurel Nakadate is like one of the top fifty, which is still pretty good.
That guy with the "who is a movie star" article would have been so much better off writing a "who is a leading man" article, as that would actually have made sense.
The argument over whether it's totes sexist to poke parodic fun at creepy sexist pervs is only slightly less moronic.
While we're doing the whole calling people morons thing, may I say DS that you're either exceptionally good at trolling or a fucking moron, and since I don't remember you being like this previously -- and of course I want to think the best of you -- I must assume somebody hit you over the fucking head with a rock or something because you sure have been dumb as a box of hammers lately.
Sorry Blume, just calling it like I see it.
Yup, me too.
Jim Carrey is the Joseph Conrad of parodizing pervs.
dumb as a box of hammers
Huh, I always heard it as "dumber than a sack of hammers". I wonder if this is a regional thing?
430: English isn't his native language?
428: you sure have been dumb as a box of hammers lately
Since I'm reading this risible blather in light of 334, I forgive you.
430: Jim Carrey is the Joseph Conrad of parodizing pervs.
Or one might say he's either the Kurtz or Marlowe of parodizing pervs. But which?
It figures that Boston and LA can only reconcile in a thread full of fights.
425: Did anyone read National Review's insane post on who is and who isn't depraved? What crazy nonsense that was.
Ah, here it is. Read it and weep. (FYI, von Wafer, no matter what you may think, the poor are not depraved.)
Since I'm reading this risible blather in light of 334, I forgive you.
You're a pro. And not even sexist!
I just might make a template from this form of comment. Except it would be stupid.
Confidential to Von Wafer: embarrassing typo discovered in HUP book: "whole-heatedly".
435: parsi, for reasons I can't quite comprehend, you seem hellbent on reading ill intent into what I wrote, so I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. But really, I think you'll feel better after a nap or a maybe a snack.
the poor are not depraved
Some are depraved. Most are deprived.
437: parsi, I'm sorry that the connection I saw eluded you. So, how about you drop it now? Snack time!
438: I've already offered you the post of line editor, and you've rejected my overtures. Now you're just being gratuitous.
I shouldn't get involved, but VW, I think parsimon was just puzzled and then just trying to explain why she was puzzled by the FYI in your comment. You seem to be intent on turning this into something larger and then condescending all over the place with comments about naps and snacks.
Or one might say he's either the Kurtz or Marlowe of parodizing pervs. But which?
I wouldn't say that, because it wouldn't really support the analogy.
Snack time!
Seriously? Now even *I* think you're being a dick.
445: I am altering the analogy. Pray I don't alter it any further.
444: by all means get involved. I didn't read her that way, though, and absent her explaining that you're right and I'm wrong, I'll stick to my reading (which, by the way, having gone over the thread again, I'm pretty sure is on the mark). But if it turns out you're right, I'll be happy to apologize to her. Because really, I didn't mean to offend her and only got tired of what seemed like her picking at an innocuous comment I made.
446: that was dickish, yes. But by that time, I was long since tired of her act. "Snack time!" withdrawn.
Analogies are still banned. Stick to metaphors.
448, 449: FWIW I read your initial comment the exact same way parsi did.
I agree with 444 and continue to be confused about what the hell VW is talking about.
448: Maybe it made sense if you'd read the Grantland article.* I haven't, as it's a Grantland article and by Simmons.
*Also, if you were the author of the comment.
451: it would be worth a fair amount, I guess, if I actually understood how or why parsimon had initially read that comment. Anyway, not that this is all that interesting, but it's late, and I'm bored, so here's how I intended it: I was making fun of the fact that I had originally called Jim Carrey, who's a giant (if declining) movie star, a "loser". That I had called him that, a comment that parsi picked up on, then made me think of that odd piece by Bill Simmons, which piece (of crap) I wondered if anyone had read. And in typing that up in a comment, I tried to connect the Simmons post to the earlier conversation by adding the paranthetical in which I mentioned parsimon. Then we were off to the races. Oops. My mistake.
448: absent her explaining that you're right and I'm wrong
For heaven's sake. Fake Accent is right in 444. I thought I explained in 402, shortly after your FYI remark. Your reply in 405 was weirdly combative and rude.
Meanwhile, here's some juicy gossip about about Gosling and Emma Stone. I need to start reading these celebrity sites! I didn't even know there was a movie called Crazy, Stupid Love.
Just one about in 456. It's not meta gossip.
455: my apologies, then. I guess the misunderstanding actually stemmed from 405, which I intended to be innocuous. Anyway, sorry that I chose you as a place-holder.
Fuck, looking at 459, it could easily be read as glib, and that wasn't my intention. I really am sorry, parsi, for having initially misunderstood you and then for having escalated the situation.
Truth be told, I think I probably need a nap or maybe a good night's sleep.
462 was to 459. Maybe we can stop fighting now. Sleep well.
Wow, reading the lyrics to that Snoop ode to True Blood's Sookie is ... quite an experience. "We'll do it in the daytime / Bill won't know a thing" -- heehee. Oh, that Snoop.
, she didn't ask to be the object of Carrey's failed parody, which is certainly much creepier than it is funny. And I don't really understand will's argument that, because she's a star, she's fair game. Legally? Sure. But morally? It isn't clear to me how her stardom makes it okay for a loser like Carrey to inappropriately perv all over her on her in public.
It was clearly a parody of pervy internet stalker guys.
It does nothing negative to her, but it gets her name out there more than it otherwise is.
There is zero reason for her to be creeped out or hurt by it.
After I watched the video, I was surprised that this was even an issue. Clear parody. I didnt find it that interesting, but there isnt any question about what he was doing.
It is both a parody and the truth. Jim Carrey wants to have sex with and potentially marry Emma Stone.