I listened, dumb-founded, to a radio call-in show about whether it was sexist or chivalrous for the man to order on behalf of the woman at a restaurant. They debated all the subtleties - should he ask ahead of time what she wants? (no.) Should he ask broadly, ie "fish or chicken?" (possibly.) Are there different expectations on a first date vs relationship? (yes.)
Anyway, the callers all said "If the woman doesn't like it, he shouldn't do it, but I would LOVE it because it would be so awesome and romantic and perfect."
For the record, I would hate it and don't anyone dare order for me.
But everybody should order a McDouble. It's the most food for the money.
I'll have the cock joke platter and the lovely Ms. Geebie here will be having the feminist complaint fondue. And could you bring us something highly alcoholic but low-calorie, please? I don't want her getting all chubby before the second date.
The few times I ordered for someone just because I knew what we both wanted (not like I was deciding or anything) I did it as kinda of a joke -- like how ridiculous is this that I'm ordered for the lady here, as if she can't order on her own.
That women still like having doors opened for them shouldn't be news anywhere, should it?
And yet I would find it presumptuous to order for my date when we're at a restaurant, unless she specifically asked me to. Did that ever really count as chivalrous? Isn't it just walking into a whole other minefield? (As in, aside from "Who the hell do you think you are ordering for me," side orders of "Why did you order such-and-such, is that some kind of comment on my weight?" et cetera.)
Whenever a waiter offers to grind pepper for a woman I'm dining with, I jump up and say, "Are you implying it takes a big strong man to turn the pepper grinder?" If you do this for long enough, they'll leave the pepper grinder at the table and you can put it in her purse on the way out.
There's a pleasant Southern thing I think of as having nice manners, and if I were more familiar with the South I'd probably be able to pin it down socioeconomic/geographically more precisely. Some of it's chivalry, which is generally not my thing, but it's not just gendered -- it's being broadly more formal than I'm used to in a smooth, comfortable kind of way. Extended greetings rather than the grunts of the people of my native land, being solicitous of older people... I don't act that way myself, but it's pleasant to be around. It might be wearing after a while.
And wait, was it ever supposed to be chivalrous for a man to order for you without asking what you wanted? I thought the idea was that you'd talk to him, but you wouldn't have to go to the crippling effort of speaking directly to the waiter.
That women still like having doors opened for them shouldn't be news anywhere, should it?
Desires shaped by patriarchy; details at 10.
If there's one of those emergency buttons, I hold the escalator for women.
That women still like having doors opened for them shouldn't be news anywhere, should it?
I am suspicious of dudes who make a big point of doing stuff like this. I suspect that they see chivalry as sort of an exchange between genders, and I probably don't want to do whatever they think of as my end of the bargain.
I don't want her getting all chubby before the second date.
No one's getting a chubby on the second date if you keep this up, buster.
Yeah, I don't make a fuss about it, but I don't like it when a man obtrusively opens doors for me (as opposed to holding a door for someone you're walking with rather than letting it slam in their face, or because you were closer to the knob than they were.)
8: That's what I thought. Older couples (of the sort who came of age in the Fifties) still have a tendency to do this division of labor, working out their order together and then leaving the ordering to the husband.
Don't people in general like having doors opened for them? Or are all the men I've ever held a door for secretly seething at the attack on their manhood?
If someone ordered for me (as in, decided for me) I'd probably think it was a joke, and then be really pissed off if it wasn't. C and I sometimes guess what each other will want though - perhaps we should take it a step further and order each other's meals.
I was quite old before I realised that generally people ask for their own food though: my dad used to order everyone's food (after we'd told him what we wanted), whilst pointing at us and saying, "this child/person would like ..."
Using the phrase "the lady will have" is key.
A few times here in the Southland, I have seen women walk up to a door, stop, and wait for their male companion to open it.
was it ever supposed to be chivalrous for a man to order for you without asking what you wanted
I don't think so. Certainly not early in a dating relationship, anyhow. "Oh, you have peanut allergies? I'm sorry. I guess I'll just finish that kung pao chicken for you then. And please stop wheezing like that. It's entirely unladylike."
1
They debated all the subtleties - should he ask ahead of time what she wants? (no.)
Jesus Christ, please tell me that someone was trolling someone.
If it's a place, or more importantly a style of food, that he is more much familiar with than her, then OK, I guess the line between him suggesting something good and him ordering it for her is pretty thin. But (a) if familiarity with the food is equal, then the presumption that the guy orders is just nonsensical, and (b) the same standard would work just as well if a woman is more familiar with a place than a man.
11: I am suspicious of dudes who make a big point of doing stuff like this.
As well you should be. The sort of man who makes a production of it is no man at all, rather the sort of riff-raff who can be found inappropriately instructing women to "smile." But it's possible to do it tastefully, with actual manners.
I grew up in [the godless socialist part of] Texas and didn't see anyone being any more "chivalrous" than the national norm. In fact, it was when I moved away for college that I first noticed people holding doors for others. Heebie, per an old LJ comment thread, first noticed it when she came to Texas for college, making me think holding doors in particular is something people only pick up with the onset of adulthood.
Therefore, I think of Southern chivalry as primarily for Lost Cause cocks, plus perhaps a handful of genuine semi-aristocrats. Maybe it's different in other states, though.
all the men I've ever held a door for secretly seething at the attack on their manhood?
You hold the door, then slam it on their manhood? Also not ladylike.
Hey, a perfect place to complain about the South! I grew up in Eastern Canada where everyone is very friendly and everyone holds doors for whomever is next. This entails glancing over your shoulder to see if anyone is behind you.
Down here in the deep South at doors I either get - the door swung (is this a word?) shut right behind the person in front of me or men leaping in front of me to hold the door for me. The worst (worst worst!) is when I hold the door for a man and he waves me through, and then I wave him through, and he waves me through (or takes the door from me!!!) and I then I go through the door first. Just fucking go through the door and don't make a big production of it.
The same is often seen at four-way stops. Which, I can't even.
The South is very proud of their niceness and chivalry but it's only skin deep (and very gendered).
I could rant on if any one would like?
Are we talking about the guy doing the talking after the couple have each decided what they're going to eat, which is a bit stone age, or the guy deciding what the woman is going to eat, which would disgrace an Ardipithecus?
Mrs y and I do usually let one of us do the talking for both when it comes to ordering, because it's more efficient. But it could be either of us and the idea that she wouldn't choose her own snap is crazy.
20: Well, for a woman to like that a man was holding doors for her (as you suggested many do), she'd have to notice that he was doing it in some different way than two men walking together or two women walking together do for each other. Doesn't that require it to be at least a little marked?
When we're eating somewhere with shared food (Indian, Ethopian, etc.) usually Rhymeswithmaria orders for both of us. I'm quite fond of this arrangement, and can see why some women might find it pleasant. But for non-shared food I'd find it really bizarre. Even for the drinks portion of shared food it seems weird to me not to say what I want myself.
13: or because you were closer to the knob
IYKWIMAITTYD
Do they still have restaurants in the US where there's a non-priced menu for the laydeez? That whole business just seems so The Apartment to me -- taking all the micro-manifestations of patriarchy to such an absurd extent that it can't be anything but risible.
25: Well, holding the door in that certain way isn't something you do for strangers, that's creepy. I was talking about "the dating experience" as referenced by the post, not everyday commuting life.
The worst (worst worst!) is when I hold the door for a man and he waves me through, and then I wave him through, and he waves me through (or takes the door from me!!!) and I then I go through the door first. Just fucking go through the door and don't make a big production of it.
THIS. Especially when it's, say, a door at the top of stairs and it is way more awkward for him to reach over my head and take over the door which I'm already holding open for him, implying that I should then duck under his arm and walk through the door that he's now holding for me.
I think I've seen one, but I can't remember the context. Not on a date... must have been some Biglaw meal.
Do they still have restaurants in the US where there's a non-priced menu for the laydeez?
Fancy clubs have them. The menu without prices is for the guest of the member.
(So, further to 29: how do you do it on a date without making a production out of it, but without it seeming offhand? Hard to explain, you just... do it. Without flourishes announcing that you think you just stepped out of the pages of a fairy tale. It's the same way you offer your lady friend a light without being either offhand about it or creepily solicitous, you just... politely offer her a light.)
Even no so fancy clubs. Just any private club where you are a guest.
29: Oh, all sorts of gendered stuff is fine if the context is explicitly romantic. Coat-helping-on-with, that kind of thing. If you like the guy, it's either smooth, in a good way, or endearingly goofy, and if you don't like him the chivalry isn't the problem.
I only get annoyed by that sort of thing in a non-romantic context.
My theory is that you can lightly flirt with everyone, and everyone will love it, regardless of gender, and any of this etiquette can and should be pulled off with a touch of the flirt.
If I knew my date was definitely paying for the meal, I'd love a menu without prices. Otherwise I'd be distracted by what exactly I was forcing him to pay.
I'm not crazy about that. Lots of people I interact with, I'd rather not be flirting with.
37: But don't they only have menus without prices at places that assume that if you have to ask, you don't belong there?
I've recently tried to formalize for myself the idea that if someone yields to me (not just driving, but things like holding the door or letting you in line first), I should never counter-yield, even if my instinct would have been to yield first. Even if I yield first, and they counter-yield, I should just accept it.
(Seriously, don't counter-yield. It confuses everything.)
I'm not crazy about that. Lots of people I interact with, I'd rather not be flirting with.
Eh, then don't flirt. I'm just saying that it's not a romantic, sexy-time thing. It's a playful thing that gets the other person to warm to you.
I agree with 38. Also, some of us aren't built to pull off full-spectrum flirting. It's better for us to seem cuddly and nonthreatening and break out the flirt with strategic timing.
39: They do it at rather run of the mill clubs in Pittsburgh.
|| Gross baby just chewed up a bug. Non-toxic, thankfully. Ew. |>
I keep concubines chained up in the kitchen really do ordinarily hold doors open for women and allow them to get into and leave the elevator first. I guess I was just told to do that and so not doing so seems a bit rude. I try not to make a big production out of it. I was told to always open car doors for women, as well, but that one is almost impossible to do without being ludicrously demonstrative in the days of the remote locking/unlocking device, so that one's been dropped.
The restaurant-ordering thing seems bizarre and incomprehensible. Although, wasn't there a scene in Fast Times that touched on that?
40: Seriously, don't counter-yield. It confuses everything.
Obviously, you are not a Minnesotan.
I'm always happy to let someone get on or off the bus first, or hold the door for them, or whatever. I hope I am not being too creepy about it. I definitely don't stand there holding the door when they're still 30 feet out though, that shit drives me up the wall.
I think the Hammer is talking about taking someone to a private club where you're a member and they're a guest. The guest gets a no-price menu. The [almost certainly correct] assumption is that it would be rude to invite someone to your club and then charge them for the meal, so no prices are shown. This is only related to sexism in the higher-dimensional level where I guess private clubs are generally elitist and sexist.
45: I am not at home, so I can't resort to my customary response in these situations, which is to pop in my Fast Times DVD and then write a detailed shot-by-shot account of the scene in question. IIRC though, the point is more that JJL's character is 14 or 15, and is treating the meal out at the "fancy" restaurant with perhaps more formality than it deserves. She's with the gormless kid, right? So it's towards the end?
I was told to always open car doors for women, as well, but that one is almost impossible to do without being ludicrously demonstrative in the days of the remote locking/unlocking device, so that one's been dropped.
I had a girlfriend who required me to do this.
I was always taught that if I gave a woman a ride, when I dropped her off I should wait until she got inside before driving away. I assume this was in case somebody was waiting to attack her as she found her keys. Anyway, I still do it and I don't even pull all the way to the curb when I'm dropping a man somewhere.
Yes, I do the thing in 50 as well.
When I'm driving a woman somewhere, I make sure to drive all the way up into the house, so she doesn't need to cross any distance of dangerous outdoors.
When I'm driving a man somewhere, I have my door rigged so that he'll fall out of the car if I give him a good, solid kick. That way I don't have to slow down.
I notice some cabdrivers do 50 -- I don't get a lot of rides from nonprofessionals. I appreciate that as a safety precaution, if it's late.
I don't even pull all the way to the curb slow down when I'm dropping a man somewhere
Can we talk about chairs? The only people who ever pull out chairs for me are waiters and I don't really understand how it's supposed to work. Like do you sit all the way down and let them push the chair in? B/c that is very infantalizing and awkward esp. if the floor is carpeted. I also think that this would be extra awkward if you were overweight.
Or do you sort of squat and let them push the chair against the back of your legs? Also awkward, but that's what I do. Somehow my upbringing did not cover the protocol for this.
And what is the point? I don't feel like getting the chair the right distance from the table is all that taxing. I mean, sure, if there's not a man around sometimes I end up sitting a foot from the table. But that's why they invented napkins, right?
53: Once they dropped the NCAA rules, it became almost impossible to find an amateur cab driver.
Sifu didn't even slow down before pwning me because he's from the rude-ass north.
I like to pull out chairs for people, but do it super unobtrusively, so they don't even notice.
I mean, until they're on the floor.
But that's why they invented napkins, right?
They invented napkins because Napoleon put buttons on coat sleeves meaning you had to find a new place to wipe your mouth.
Eh, then don't flirt. I'm just saying that it's not a romantic, sexy-time thing. It's a playful thing that gets the other person to warm to you.
Flirting is not romantic?
What?
Re: 50: given that I'm absent-minded, I've always assumed it was just as much to make sure that person has their keys or someone is there to let them in. I also don't think of it as gendered. I would do it with a dude.
A more gendered thing would be walking a woman back to her car, waiting with her at the bus stop that's supposed to pick her up, or just generally making sure she's not alone and bored / in danger.
60: Well, Heebie is right. Flirting doesn't necessarily come with the expectation of romance. It can just be flirting for the sake of flirting.
I was always taught that if I gave a woman a ride, when I dropped her off I should wait until she got inside before driving away.
I was taught that this was a good thing to do for men and women. Because kamikazi rapist-murderers lurking by the door, of course.
As for the ordering for me at restaurants thing, it would annoy me with most people. The guy I'm dating now, however, has really good taste in food and knows what sorts of things I like (even before I know I'll like it). We'll talk over a menu, yes, but sometimes we'll go somewhere, and I'll throw up my hands and let him go for it. Always delicious. Admittedly, when I am expecting to pay, I tend to take matters a little more into my own hands.
I would never have thought it would happen to me, etc.
sometimes I end up sitting a foot from the table
Usually you can kind of shuffle your chair closer to the table (taking your time so as not to appear like you some kind of neurological problem, unless you do.)
Apparently Queen Victoria used to just sit down whenever she felt like it without checking there was even a chair there, because she was perfectly confident that her servants would ensure that there was something for her to sit on. Probably this didn't apply in the middle of a grouse moor.
50: You have to wait for people to get inside their house here, or they will freeze to death. Even in July.
63: See, but you agree to let him do it before he does it. That's an important step, it would seem to me.
waiting with her at the bus stop that's supposed to pick her up
Very mobile bus stop, that.
Hey, hey, how you doin'? What kind of music do you like?
62: Well, it's not flirting as I understand flirting if there isn't at least an undercurrent of "If the time, place, and circumstances were different, romance would be a possibility, you sexy thing you." Subtle, but if that's not there it's just being friendly, right?
Whenever I hold open a door, I whisper under my breath "Let's do it."
'Ere luv, you fancy a shag?
69: "If the time, place and circumstances were different" means that in these ones, there's no expectation of romance. It is a gesture toward the putative sexiness of persons involved, sure, but a pretty oblique one. It could just as easily be read "Do you find me charming and perhaps a touch sexy? Not that it matters."
if that's not there it's just being friendly, right?
But how am I supposed to know when it is or isn't there? You smiled at me.
63.--Yeah, prior consent is key. If some random guy started up and ordering for me without my go-ahead, it probably wouldn't go well.
It took me a second to realize that 70 didn't describe Halford psyching himself up for the whole door-holding-open adventure.
69 gets it right.
Friendliness + implied possibility of romance = flirting
Rereading 36, I guess we have different definitions of these words. Really, Heebs? You flirt with everyone? Men, women, all the same?
Birds do it. Bees do it. Even educated fleas do it. Let's do it, let's hold the door.
69 does indeed get it right.
77.last: Heebie is really Capt. Jack Harkness.
78 is full of win.
MFK Fisher recounts somewhere (I think I quoted it at length here, but I'm not sure anymore) a dinner she hosted at a restaurant for a friend or business acquaintance or something. She ordered in advance for the entire party, and paid in advance, too.
Really? Everybody agrees with the formula
Friendliness + implied possibility of romance = flirting
69, 81: If LB doesn't flirt with you, it means you are hideous. If Jackmormon does flirt with you, it means you are.
81: Well, it's a little weird. You're implying the possibility of romance; if you don't actually want to go anywhere with it, you probably want the participants to be such that everyone's certain that both parties are kidding about the possibility, and it's really not going to happen. So, um, the implication of romance is often false and expected to be understood as such, but if it's not there at all, what you're doing isn't flirting? Does that make sense.
80. Hey that's giving a party, which is a bit different. i invited 20 people to a restaurant for my 60th birthday, and I certainly worked out the menu with the guy in advance (and paid), because it was easier that way for everybody concerned. But an intimate dinner for two is another dynamic.
81: The implication of the possibility of romance is the flirting, is it not? Whether the possibility is actually, um, possible seems to be another matter entirely.
Ugh, 55 et al. annoys me. Once in a while I feel obligated to do that, but can never do it unobtrusively. I suppose this thread puts things in perspective - I shouldn't worry about it.
I guess there might be some hidebound logic to that too, if womens' dresses or shoes are less convenient to sit down in than mens' clothes. Doesn't apply if we're all wearing pants and flat-soled shoes, though.
I agree with 61 about waiting after someone you've dropped off gets out of your car. I rarely drive these days, but get driven around a fair amount, and they usually wait until I'm into where I'm going or out of sight. Which just makes sense, I think, unless it's some really long walk for some reason.
And if someone would be an actual possibility for romance, but you don't want anything to happen, flirting is something to be very cautious about.
I'm not saying that my approach to flirting is rational or particularly ethical.
My friend Chris realized long ago that menus are just too daunting for him; that he prefers not to be distracted from the pre-dinner chat by an agonizing decision; that I (or his current girlfriend) should simply order for him unasked. I've been ordering his meals for twenty years now. He either gets pasta or whatever I wanted second-most.
Unless I am going to an ethnic restaurant with someone who might know the food better than I do, I prefer to order for myself. I'd be shocked if a man presumed to do that for me, especially without consulting me, seeing as how I'm vegetarian and all.
When I went to an ag college, the nice farm boys were relentless about the door opening, which is when I realized that going through the opened door is also a skill. There's a timing that I learned after considerable error and standing around staring at the farm boy in confusion.
Jackmormon is describing what I take flirting to be about, though: it's a benign game of performing and inviting mild attraction, not necessarily holding out any "possibility of romance."
It sounds perfectly normal to me, just like we're using different words to describe mostly the same process. You flirt with safe targets, where both parties know that it's not going anywhere. I'm just saying that for it to be flirting, you have to be at least pretending on some level that if things were different, it might. (And of course presumably there's actual flirting with intent to develop into something for real, but that's different.)
93 also to 92. "Performing mild attraction" sounds to me like the same thing as what I meant about pretending a possibility of romance if circumstances were different.
A playful butt squeeze needn't signal romantic interest, if it's done gracefully.
95: See, I was going to make that joke but go the extra mile and include frottage. Your restraint is admirable.
If you have to go a mile out of your way for the frottage it might be pretty conspicuous.
I thought it would just indicate commitment.
If it indicates commitment, it's more than performing mild attraction. (How do you perform mild attraction? Do you need lube?)
Black leotards, and whiteface. You just keep drifting irresistibly closer to the target, while dragging your feet and holding on to things.
99: Sorry, I meant indicate the possibility of commitment.
How do you perform mild attraction? Do you need lube?
Nope. A magnet and some iron shavings.
(I like to think the performance in 101 could be incorporated into the performance in 100, somehow.)
To 17's I have seen women walk up to a door, stop, and wait for their male companion to open it.
Discussing door-holding with roommate just now, he informed me that I do this. I had no idea. Not sure how to reconcile this with 11.
You could ask a man to figure it out for you.
103: I do a certain amount of subconsciously eyeing men I'm walking with to figure out what they're going to do with the next door, because I don't want to trip when they lunge for it or pause awkwardly or anything. Every so often I guess wrong and pause when the guy wasn't going to grab the door. Maybe that's what's going on?
103: There's no contradiction. You simply feel as though the man should do his job without getting delusions of grandeur about it. Perfectly fine.
I don't think I've ever ordered a meal for another person. Many people I've dined with are of the "question the wait staff closely, then change mind three times while ordering" tribe and it's best to let them make their own way through the menu.
But an intimate dinner for two is another dynamic.
Baby. [Bow-chicka-chicka-chicka-wow-wow-chicka.]
107.--This drives me nuts. It probably shouldn't, as long as it's done in a polite, friendly manner. My atavistic instinct is to believe that menus have been arranged so as to taste the best, and if you're so persnickety about the food, you should be cooking for your own damn self. I know this isn't rational, but I still writhe with embarrassment when dining with someone who questions the the wait staff closely, then changes their mind three times while ordering (and probably requests specific non-standard treatment).
My atavistic instinct is the same as 109, but my weirdo diet has made me an ingredient-questioner.
"Does this have agriculture in it?"
Unless it's really vital ("Can I have the one he didn't sneeze on?), I try not to be picky.
But why shouldn't you get the meal you want? (Presumably you will also tip well for being inconvenient.) The whole idea of a restaurant is to exchange money for the food you want. And yet I writhe.
I have a terrible habit of changing my mind between telling my companions what I plan to order (many of my friends subscribe to the "everyone order something different and we'll share" philosophy) and actually ordering.
What a nice thread.
On chairs:
55: I don't really understand how it's supposed to work. Like do you sit all the way down and let them push the chair in? [...] Or do you sort of squat and let them push the chair against the back of your legs?
Neither. The chair-pulling-out is a gesture.
You, let's see, you move to the appropriate position with respect to the chair and quickly drop your bag/purse on the table or floor, begin to bend in an about-to-sit manner, glance up/back toward the chair-puller-outer and say with a gracious smile "Thank you!", then leave off your attention from the chair-puller-outer (indicating that you've got it now), at which point they should not engage in any pushing in of the chair; then you grab the seat of the chair from, like, underneath, and as you complete the sitting, pull the chair along with you into a completed under-you fully-sitting finale. This should all be done in one swift and seamless sequence.
If I may serially comment: chivalrous behavior doesn't have much to do with flirting, it seems to me. It's a formal-ish social code that may turn up more on certain kinds of dates, but I think that's ... I don't know, a red herring?
There's a mismatch, in my own experience, between men who tend toward the chivalrous, and men on dates: some friends/acquaintances routinely open doors for women, while some men I've dated do, and others don't. I'd only think it had anything to do with courting if the courtesy seemed awkward for the person. For a lot of people it isn't.
I'm pretty sure it actually is a learnable skill to push a chair smoothly into place under a person as they sit down. Pretty silly now, though.
If you wore a bustle, you might need help with the chair. You'd need your hands free to handle the skirt's hardware.
My atavistic instinct is to believe that menus have been arranged so as to taste the best, and if you're so persnickety about the food, you should be cooking for your own damn self.
What does this mean, the food at the top of the menu tastes better than the food at the bottom? Or what?
I often change my mind immediately before speaking my order, but that's more instinctual than anything.
120: If you can't afford a food taster and must dine out, ordering randomly is good security practice.
Exactly the thing. Also if they don't seat me with my back to the door I will walk straight the fuck out of Red Lobster, believe it.
121: I've read a lot of spy novels.
Wait if they do seat me with my back to the door. Fuck. And now my popcorn shrimp order is in. I'll have to use my sixth sense for enemies/poisons.
113: But why shouldn't you get the meal you want?
This here being the thing. It's the restaurant's job to get your order right and serve you edible food. If this is not happening, changing your order is not dickish, and making your server go back an extra time or two is not dickish. (It's dickish to do if, say, they're failing to scrape the toast into the pattern reminiscent of the Mona Lisa or something... but within reason.) It's not the kind of thing you should even be tipping extra for; getting the order right is the basic level of the service, not the extra effort for which gratuities are in order. The only kind of server, or staff, that has a problem with this is the incompetent and overly-entitled kind (which unfortunately is numerous, but there you have it).
Wait if they don't not seat me with my back to the door. That's it. Olive Garden time. Lock and load.
Once I sent my burger back because they had given me fries instead of the replacement salad I had asked for. It was really humiliating. I found myself making excuses to the waitress.
127: Why not just ask for a salad and keep your burger?
I did keep the burger. I sent the plate back to have a fryectomy and implansaladation. The burger held its position.
You all are being nutty restrictive with the flirting. Babies flirt. Small children flirt all the time. It's a playful way of making a connection with someone. If I were hitting on someone, there would be lots of touching. But just flirting - you can flirt with a whole table of people, and if you're actually connecting with each person, it's not weird. Just playful.
If I were hitting on someone, there would be lots of touching.
Does not work for dudes the same way, don't think.
130: Babies flirt. Small children flirt all the time.
Hmmm, I think we should really call it something a little different with babies and small children. NAMBLA might get the wrong idea if nothing else.
That is true. That doesn't mean that there's not a distinction for dudes between flirting and hitting on someone, though.
125: I was taking "specific non-standard treatment" to mean something along the lines of, I want the striped bass, but grilled rather than pan-roasted, and with the sauce that comes on the cod, but on the side, and no olives, and with the kale that comes with the lamb, but steamed rather than sauteed, &c, &c. Essentially viewing the menu as a list of ingredients with which the kitchen should cook you anything you want. I think this sort of thing is wholly unreasonable, but if the waitstaff does arrange all of that for you, you should consider tipping extra.
Sending back an incorrect order (or a flawed wine) is something else entirely, and should not be at all embarrassing.
133: Of course there's a distinction. But I think we all agree there's a distinction.
People above were asserting that flirting only occurs with an undercurrent of sexy-time!
134: Well, changing your mind while ordering is also a basic right. That's part of the "getting your order right" part of the contract.
Requesting specific "non-standard" treatment is, well, I'm not sure what it means: if you're asking them to build a whole new meal for you, that's stupid and they'd be right to be annoyed; but if you ask them to hold a couple of ingredients or for a different sauce with the side, it shouldn't be a big deal.
134.2: I don't know that I could reliably tell a flawed wine from one that was perfectly preserved but tasted like shit.
136: Well, honestly, I think Lizardbreath has a point that there has to be an undercurrent of attraction or something sexy-time-related for us to call it flirting. Otherwise what's happening is just bubbliness, friendliness, effusiveness, positivity... that same thing that kids have that isn't flirting.
||Interesting. Herman Cain's defense about the sexual harassment stuff seems to be "I harass less than 1% of the people I meet!"
From today's debate
Cain: And I value my character and my integrity more than anything else. And for every ... one person that comes forward with a false accusation, there are probably ... there are thousands who would say none of that sort of activity ever came from Herman Cain.
Or is he saying that there's someone else responsible for the harassment of these women? Will he pledge to find the true harasser?
|>
(The "undercurrent of attraction or something sexy-time-related" is still different from "hitting on someone" though.)
141: Herman Cain is very obviously being ratfucked, I think (and probably, in fact, by the Perry camp). But his being such a nutcase anyway makes it hard to feel any sympathy for him.
136: I think I'm still going to have to go with that. Which is why babies don't 'flirt'.
What counts as flirting with women, Heebie? Like, what?
Otherwise what's happening is just bubbliness, friendliness, effusiveness, positivity... that same thing that kids have that isn't flirting.
This can happen in spades without actually connecting with the other person. It's the connection that makes it flirting.
143: Perry did not do so well tonight either. Has not done. whatever. Really, just magnificent fail coming from him. So I guess the ratfucker may be fucking himself out of any shot.
It's always so wondrous to me that Republicans have a version of "doing badly in a debate." How can they tell who is who?
Cain has lost the mustache lobby.
145: Well, the conservative voters will evidently vote for anyone who isn't Mitt Romney -- even Herman Cain -- so Perry doesn't really need debating skills. Just to be the last not-Romney left standing (and he's the only one with the fundraising resources to do it).
146: Oh man, this was so far beyond... at some point Perry was trying to list 3 cabinet departments he'd "abolish" and couldn't remember the last. He mentioned some examples, and finished with "oops."
149: "Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice... uhhhhh.... can't get fooled again!"
Because the Department of Fooling was closed by President Perry.
Look I won't seriously handicap the primary--I just don't know who the crazies or the blissfully unaware will anoint. But good lord, Perry is coming off worse than GWB did (ever I think), and Cain is Disadvantaged in an R primary.
People above were asserting that flirting only occurs with an undercurrent of sexy-time!
The undercurrent of sexy-time is constitutive of flirting. You needn't be trying to actualize sexy times, but the frisson is what makes it flirting.
149: What's particularly interesting is that he apparently (according to TPM) turned to Ron Paul, saying "There should be five... One is EPA."
Who is running their campaigns, that they're cribbing off one another so completely? Apart from the distinct form of comedy each provides, their policy proposals are increasingly indistinguishable. (flat tax! abolish agencies! privatize Social Security!) This doesn't appear to be a primary so much as a drumming up of the masses to vote against Obama. It's as though they've decided that there's nothing rational whatsoever involved in winning either the primary or the general. It's completely bewildering. Gingrich wants to abolish the CBO, for christ's sake.
I don't agree. I think you all would enjoy flirting with a broader range of people. You should try it sometime.
He does need to find out which departments don't give out money to his rich friends. No easy task since nearly all of them do, in one way or another.
Methinks Heebie is not defining flirting the way the rest of us are.
Count me in as objectively pro-flirting. As subject and especially as object.
157 was about Perry.
Back to work.
Correction to 155.1: I'd misread the TPM thing. Ron Paul said "There should be five." Sorry.
156: Well, I think making a connection doesn't define something as flirting. It's perfectly possible to make connections via friendliness that have nothing to do with flirting.
||
breaking news from Penn State: news conference by the trustees at Penn State are saying that both Paterno (coach) and Spanier (U. President) are out.
I agree that this is the appropriate response.
|>
I suspect I'm inclined to flirt like heebie, but it yielded too many false positives among straight guys and so I've stopped.
OT and I probably don't want an answer, but how did I end up in some bizarro world version of the relationships where one expects to somehow change the other's mind about having kids? It's awful.
I'm not claiming it's the connection alone that makes it flirting, you doofus. It's making a connection via playfulness. Like a goofy teasing sultryness, that both my kids are capable of doing.
Too late! I'm convinced everyone here is leading a deprived existence.
Toddlers cannot be sultry, Heebie.
(Really, I'm trying to get what you mean. I don't.)
Like a goofy teasing sultryness, that both my kids are capable of doing.
Dude, kids are not sultry.
A connection via playfulness, absent the idea of sexytimes being in the air, is just a connection via playfulness, not flirting.
Kids can flirt. I've watched my son try to cozy up to some older girl and he is really good at it. (But that isn't sultry.)
||
No more masturbating to Paterno's coaching career, which seriously, beyond inappropriate in any case.
|>
Whatever your "goals" are in an activity that constitutes flirting, you at least need to have some consciousness of yourself as being sexual, and babies don't have that.
I can't read back that far. What kind of man do you think I am?
It's like a jokey-sultry. Like actually doing the sultry-look, but with a twinkle that you're teasing.
174: Okay, I think I see what you mean. There are kids who can do this. I'm still reluctant to call it actual flirting, though.
175 is right. That's flirting the way what lion cubs do is hunting.
For the rightness reasons of 170—your sexuality is involved in flirting.
I do know what Heebie means about the little-kid flirting; babies through toddlers or so do a "I am being actively charming right at you" thing that's very much reminiscent of adult-flirting bodylanguage. It's not the same thing, but it looks very similar. Not so much older kids - maybe ten mints through four years?
You should trust me on this, because in addition to being an analyst of concepts, I am also a highly flirtatious, sexual being.
174: I'd call that being coy or coquettish. At best I'd go to "flirty," but not flirting. I'm not trying to be difficult: I really would just say about someone doing that they were being flirty, but not flirting with me.
I'm with Heebie too. There's a connection that takes friendliness to flirting. I think it needs an unspoken acknowledgement of 'you are attractive to me' but doesn't necessarily need physical attraction. I do think that babies and little kids 'flirt' because they're more open about their enjoyment of you and only later learn to put up barriers.
I flirt with anyone who I want to pull into warming to me and being connected. Older secretaries. Children.
Generally not my students, although I'm plenty silly and goofball with them. But not quite in a way that invites a personal connection unless I've known them for several years and we actually have a friendship.
I don't believe that what you do with children is anything I'd call flirting.
: I'd call that being coy or coquettish.
But this isn't necessarily as good-natured and friendly as flirting is. Flirting is about creating a brief encounter in which the other person is charmed, but also thinks you were really pleased to have the change to have that exchange with them.
But yes: the coy and coquettish is what makes it flirting. The friendly and genuine is what makes it something that you can do with anyone.
I share the Heebie-hydrobatidae broader conception of flirting. The zing of (performed) attraction, yes, but that attraction doesn't have to be sexual to count as flirting to me.
It is said that every Unfogged thread ultimately comes down to a dispute over the meaning of a particular word.
It'th like, if thomeone ith reading thomething.
It'th like the myriad threath pothed by a thuperthtorm of great breadth and depth.
And on Paterno, apparently *I* was in the bubble in thinking the retirement was appropriate per some comment in the other thread.
Some comment that I made. Now disband the trustees.
184: Just chiming in to say that I'm with Heebie. I flirt with absolutely everyone.
Now disband the trustees.
Yup. And if it wouldn't have an impact on innocent players, killing the football program would be a good idea as well.
Good God, people. This isn't difficult.
In this video, the Japanese guy is flirting. The American guy is hitting on somebody.
I flirt with absolutely everyone.
But, insofar as it's flirtation, oh, nevermind.
Flirting has always confused the hell out of me.
I'm fairly certain I asked questions when ordering last time I ate in a restaurant with Jackmormon, and now I'm embarrassed that it might have made her writhe.
201: These students definitely ought to have their football program taken away:
In wake of the Board of Trustees' decision to dismiss Penn State President Graham Spanier and head football coach Joe Paterno, thousands of students gathered at Old Main at around 10:30 p.m., shouting chants of "F--- the Trustees" and "We want Joe."
"Being accepted to Penn State felt like a family, and Joe Paterno was the father. Now that he's gone my heart is in two," Hanselman (senior-marketing) said.
Good god.
206: Nice to see things haven't changed much since I graduated. Fuck me, how/why did I make it through four full years there?
206: rioting in support of the pedophile-protecting football coach? How romantic. Someone page the folk song composers.
Oh, this is classic (from a PSU Facebook page):
"What is 9/11/01 now??? The day to remember is 11/9/11!!!!"
Fuck me, how/why did I make it through four full years there?
You spent your time studying? You didn't study but ignored the football culture? You did a lot of very strong drugs? It's possible that one or more of the above is how I survived four years in Madison, WI and then two more years in Norman, OK.
211: I wish I could say it was any of the three. I'm going to have to go with "depression and stupidity".
205.--No writhing. If I recall correctly, you asked for a clarification on the menu (hey, what are these things?) and an assurance that something was vegetarian. I consider that sort of thing to be bog-standard give-and-take between waiter and customer.
Now that we've gone from whether toddlers can be sultry to the Penn State pedophilia scandal, I'll just change the subject and note that holy shit, is Rick Perry bad at debating. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like it before. Did he have to debate anybody to become governor of Texas or is it just arm wrestling or shooting snakes or something?
Being governor of Texas, because of their wacky system, is rather famously not an especially important job. Given that, it seems entirely possible that Perry said he wanted the gig and pretty much everyone else just shrugged and went back to doing math, organizing unions, walking their dogs while wearing tinfoil hats, and whatever the fuck else they do down there.
No, I'm aware that it's the weakest executive in the 50 states. But there's still a campaign, right? With TV cameras and stuff?He makes GWB look like William F. Buckley.
PSU has pretty much been one big excuse to riot. They have one pretty much every year. What else are you going to do in State College?
But there's still a campaign, right? With TV cameras and stuff?
Based on recent evidence, I sort of doubt it. I mean, there can't be, can there?
If only we knew someone who lived there.
How about the thing where a group goes to dinner and one person orders for everyone? I've encountered this often at Chinese restaurants where a Chinese dude refuses to let anyone else order. Also once at a Greek restaurant where an Italian guy insisted he knew how to order better than the rest of us. I always find it kind of obnoxious, even when the food turns out to be great--couldn't we all talk about it first?
For professional reasons, I tend to order for most, if not all of the table; I sometimes stop myself after ordering for myself and the kids, so as to allow AB to order for herself. But I'm better than she is at keeping track of the ~7 dishes we've agreed upon, so that's why it falls to me. I never did such a thing as an act of chivalry (I may have ordered in restaurants with dish names in a foreign language that I spoke and my date didn't).
BOGF freaked out on me for not waiting for her to walk in the door after I dropped her off. I don't think it was a big deal, but it's a reasonable habit, if only for the "make sure they can get in" reason.
LB's description of "I am being actively charming right at you" is exactly how I understood H-G. That's really all flirting is; most people don't do it in situations without at least a frisson of romantic potential (if only in the abstract), so it's associated with that dynamic,but there's no inherent link. That is, the same behavior towards the cute woman who just moved in down the hall and the cleaning lady isn't misplaced in either case, even if the ultimate intention differs. It's simply (as H-G said) a way of establishing a connection through a specific performance of charm (more subtle applications of charm work without being noticed as such, and wouldn't be called flirting in a romantic situation, nor "charming" in unromantic ones; you just end up charmed).
204 is the least surprising comment on this thread.
Heh. There's certainly ample evidence for it all over the archives of this blog.
LB's description of "I am being actively charming right at you" is exactly how I understood H-G. That's really all flirting is; most people don't do it in situations without at least a frisson of romantic potential (if only in the abstract), so it's associated with that dynamic,but there's no inherent link. That is, the same behavior towards the cute woman who just moved in down the hall and the cleaning lady isn't misplaced in either case, even if the ultimate intention differs. It's simply (as H-G said) a way of establishing a connection through a specific performance of charm (more subtle applications of charm work without being noticed as such, and wouldn't be called flirting in a romantic situation, nor "charming" in unromantic ones; you just end up charmed).
This, however, is the clearest explanation of (at least one way to think about) flirting that I've ever seen, so that's helpful.
220: I've encountered this often at Chinese restaurants where a Chinese dude refuses to let anyone else order.
In these situations it's often the Chinese guy doing you a favour. He knows the difference between the crappy food the restaurant serves to white people and the actually Chinese food, and chances are you don't. (I'm not sure if that applies to the Italian guy in the Greek restaurant, but it could be a similar dynamic.)
(Obviously there's an element of Being the Big Man in both examples, too, but it doesn't necessarily obviate the fact that the guy in question may actually know more about the ethnic cuisine.)
I'm not sure if that applies to the Italian guy in the Greek restaurant, but it could be a similar dynamic.
I've forgotten what the deal was there. Maybe he spoke Greek? Maybe the restaurant was actually run by Italians? This was in Switzerland.
He knows the difference between the crappy food the restaurant serves to white people and the actually Chinese food, and chances are you don't.
Yes, and even if I were to order some of the right things I would probably get a patronizing "no, you don't want that" response from the waitstaff. But still, it wasn't ever like "let's talk about what kind of things we might like, and I'll order them," it was just "we are eating this."
Upon further reflection, I think the main issue I have with the heebie approach to flirting (which does seem to be pretty common, IME) is that it basically makes flirting useless as a way to gauge actual romantic interest. Which is fine if you view flirting as an end in itself, as heebie apparently does, but it just adds one more hurdle to the already fiendishly difficult task of figuring out if someone likes you. Different people will have different priorities, of course, but if we're all interacting in the same social circles the possibilities for miscommunication increase dramatically if we're using and interpreting the same behaviors differently.
Last week a bookstore employee flirted with me when I bought a book, and I had a very clear impression that she was doing it because she was bored out of her mind, but then I wondered how many people would take it as an actual signal of romantic interest. (Anyway, she was clearly put off my inability to answer the question "what's this about?" regarding the book I was buying.)
226: But still, it wasn't ever like "let's talk about what kind of things we might like, and I'll order them," it was just "we are eating this."
Yeah, it wouldn't be. And that can be a real problem in an age where enough people are, say, celiac or anaphylactically allergic to things to pose a statistically significant risk, so it's kinda dickish. Still, on the whole, when it concerns someone's natively ethnic cuisine and they want to be all "Our Food, Let Me Show You It," I'm inclined to give them some latitude, there being a good chance it will result in eating the better or at least the more authentic article. Maybe interpolate some inquisition about peanut content et cetera where necessary.
227: But... flirting is useless for gauging actual romantic interest. It always was, more or less. All it's a gauge of is whether someone wants to feel attractive or charming. That's true of more than just the Heebie approach.
But... flirting is useless for gauging actual romantic interest. It always was, more or less.
I know that now.
I'm not quite as clueless as I once was, although I won't by any means claim to have figured all this stuff out.
Last week a bookstore employee flirted with me when I bought a book, and I had a very clear impression that she was doing it because she was bored out of her mind, but then I wondered how many people would take it as an actual signal of romantic interest.
Lots, would be my guess.
What do you say to women doing laundry now?
Fun Pseudo-Fact, BTW: An associate of mine who went into business with an HK entrepeneur in a Chinese restaurant was advised by his partner to have a separate menu of real food for the Chinese customers. His partner was dismayed enough by my friend's insistence on a standard all-customers menu to convince me that for at least some Chinese restaurants, this is really a standard and expected thing.
227, 229.last - yeah, because if flirting HAD to be an indication of actual romantic interest, then all of us coupled-up people would have to stop (or seriously cut down anyway). And that would be no fun at all.
235 - yeah, I've heard that here too. Are you and teo up late or early? I guess it's not even that late for teo though.
237: I at least am up late. Ish.
The coda on my friend's story: his restaurant went belly-up within a year and a half. A decent amount of white customers, but not enough Chinese customers. So it seems his partner was probably right.
How strange. It's tomorrow morning where I am! 8.30 now, so I should stop pissing about and get on with my day. Have been reading about dyscalculia - anyone know anything useful about it?
As I understand it, Chinese and I assume other non-European, and maybe some European, ethnic style restaurants can face a tough balancing act in the US and Canada (and Europe and probably other places). Lots of non-Chinese people apparently like the crappy Chinese food more, so you get restaurants that skew that way on the menu. But other non-Chinese people, plus Chinese people, would rather have the "real" food. So you have to judge your customer base right. But most restaurants fail anyway, I thought.
We've had these conversations before, so I'm sure I've said this before, but I don't think I've ever been aware of a separate menu in any Chinese restaurant I've been to with my Chinese family in the US. But I've also never done any ordering, aside from passing along my preferences. What I have seen, though, are places where there's only one menu, it's in Chinese, and while some of the staff could probably interpret for you - in one place in San Gabriel, I've heard them doing this for people - it's generally assumed that you wouldn't be there if you didn't have someone in your party who knew Chinese.
re: 235/241
It's not uncommon here to see two menus. I used to eat in a few places around Glasgow* with my Chinese flatmate, and the menus were definitely different. Cheaper, too. It's not strictly Chinese only, I suppose. A school mate of mine used to always get served off the 'Chinese' menu at one place because he was their drug dealer.
"You should have X, it's good."
"I don't see that on the menu."
"It's on the other menu."
"Oh, ta."
* around Garnethill, and Cowcaddens.
I have to say I flirt with everyone. it has some good sides, in that I go through life feeling like "everybody likes me! these people are nice!" like in AA in narnia, I have a lot of friends, and more well-wishers, whereas other people I know feel as though everyone hates them, or they have lots of enemies.
but it's definitely the feature that has generated the most stalkers. my husband went to a great deal of trouble to convince me that being cute+flirting with people generally was enough to explain all my stalker problems and I didn't need to invent further fictitious character flaws.
Shorter Penn State students: "Omelas 4EVER!"
95-100 were classic Unfogged. We should delete the rest of the comments, and close the site down forever.
Sometimes older men (70 plus) have a way of flirting which is not creepy which does not seem to have that much of a frisson of the sexy but for the time and place. Sometimes it does as in, "If I weren't an old guy, you'd be breaking my heart. Hell you're breaking my heart by reminding me how old I am."
But I've seen some guys like that flirt with male waiters too.
The "I am being actively charming right at you" definition of flirting is just too broad. Yes, all behaviors I would call "flirting" fall under this definition, but not every behavior that meets this definition can seriously be called flirting.
For instance, right now my cat has turned the cuteness up to 11 in an effort to convince me to give it more food. Would those in the Heebie contingent really assert that my cat is flirting with me? Seriously?
I would. My dog is a serious flirt.
247: Is it performing frottage rubbing against your leg?
Oh man, this was so far beyond... at some point Perry was trying to list 3 cabinet departments he'd "abolish" and couldn't remember the last. He mentioned some examples, and finished with "oops."
The video of this moment really has to be seen to be believed. If anyone didn't see it, you really, really must watch the clip. Must. It's jawdropping. And hilarious.
Literally not a single thought has to pass through somebody's head on their way to the top of the Republican party. It's all a combination of one's general gestalt and one's tendency to use certain words with a certain frequency. Truly post-modern.
But good lord, Perry is coming off worse than GWB did (ever I think), and Cain is Disadvantaged in an R primary.
Yes, it would be almost impossible to be worse than Perry, but with this debate performance, he merely joins GWB at the summit of muddle and confusion.
Cain really captures the modern R zeitgeist, and adds one key bonus: He can get away with overtly insulting African Americans. In the end, he's like Palin in that he lacks the organizational skill to mount a serious candidacy, but that's really all he lacks.
It's all a combination of one's general gestalt and one's tendency to use certain words with a certain frequency.
The Markovian Candidate.
252.2 I'm not sure that's right. I think the base would rather just stay home than pull his lever in the primary. Not so in the general, though.
252.last: Yeah, they haven't quite found the right combination yet.
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Tampa to be nominated?
GW really was close to the "prefect candidate" (as I recall Rove claiming once) for a late empire Republican nominee.
Faux "Aw shucksism" + establishment roots* + no principles or ideas of your own + narrative of redemption/salvation + competitive/mean streak = WIN!
*So as to not scare the money guys.
The imbecilic Republican candidates remind me of the stunted, moonfaced hemophiliacs of the European dynasties in decline, which I suppose explains the enthusiasm for cod-Metternichs like Karl Rove and Darth Cheney.
OT: Mumble Penn State mumble ESPN mumble die in a fire mumble Matthew 18:6 mumble.
247: Being overtly charming with an obvious goal is a distinct phenomenon, one with several names. There's certainly a bit of spectrum, but, as Heebie said, h-flirting is done with no more goal than making a connection and enjoying the experience of throwing off (and ideally receiving) charm-rays.
In this video, the protagonist is, essentially, h-flirting with every person he encounters - and none of it is either romantic or manipulative, and notice how everyone responds to his h-flirtation - with a smile of pleasure. Some of that is the pleasure of being noticed by this sort of magical guy who's amazing and that everyone loves - but everyone loves him because he uses his charm in this way. If he were only multitalented, everyone would resent his achievements; if he only sexy-flirted with hot young girls, then the men would resent him; if he only flirted with Beautiful People, then the begowned old lady at 2:20 wouldn't be getting down with such joy. But such is the joy of h-flirting that it makes everybody's night.
But such is the joy of h-flirting that it makes everybody's night.
Too bad it involves being attentive to other people. It's obviously too much of a huge pain in the ass do that very often.
247: those in the Heebie contingent
Heebie U Tang Clan, please.
260: Sure but when you're alone later you can bask in the glow of how essential you were. Win-win!
260: "[O]ther people"? You're not making any sense. You're babbling. You're hysterical.
I'm only on my second cup of coffee, so I might not be clear headed yet.
Anyway, I'm often engaged in teaching manners to a kindergartener. This involves trying to teach him to give at least token consideration to the needs of others even when the others are just stupid as trees without using those exact words.
"Like most Americans, there's so many agencies of government out there we'd like to forget," Perry said today. "The Department of Energy was one of those."
Perry said on NBC that the issue wasn't his memory lapse, but rather "we got so much government out there, and people are so tired of government telling them how to do this, what light bulb to buy."
"I may not be the best debater, the slickest politician," he said. Voters, he said, want "substance, not necessarily the slickest debater."
Perry wouldn't discuss whether he was worried about a drop- off in campaign contributions. Within hours of the debate, his campaign sent an e-mail to supporters, starting with the words "We've all had human moments" and suggesting a $5 contribution to the campaign "for every agency you would like to forget."
Does he really think people are that stupid?
Well there's nothing to lose
And there's nothing to prove
I'll be flirting with myself
266: I think he's assuming that nobody with a life is paying close attention yet. He's probably right, but I still think Romney is going to win the nomination.
258 belongs in the comment hall of fame.
268: It's just hard to see how driving away 90% of everyone who is paying attention can work. It's not like he had some preëxisting national base/reputation that people will use to form their opinions when they start paying attention. What will happen instead is that, when they do, they'll ask people who did pay attention, "What's the deal with this Perry guy?", the answer will be, "Forget him, he's a loser/idiot/empty suit."
And I do think that he's developing the stench of loserdom about him. The GOP was about ready to hand him the nomination the moment he declared, but he relentlessly has driven away support, and so now he's the guy who couldn't seal the deal when it was being handed to him on a silver platter. Not a good place to be.
265: even when the others are just stupid as trees without using those exact words.
Providing an opportunity to quote Thurber and also illustrate that the problems of the "student-athlete" are not completely of recent origin.
In order to be eligible to play it was necessary to keep up in his studies, a very difficult matter, for while he was not dumber than an ox he was not any smarter.
Only one person on ESPN all morning has said that Joe Paterno's reputation has been built on statements about building character and bearing responsibility, yet when the moment came to protect the most vulnerable victims imaginable, he failed to venture even minimal action, much less anything requiring sacrifice.
266, 268, 270: He's toast. he's fucked and he knows it*, he's just spinning out of reflex.
*Although McCain coming back from the semi-dead in 2008 probably keeps these yahoos sticking around.
I'd just like to co-sign all of Flip's comments on this subject.
273 -- If he can just hang on until two weeks after the voting starts, he can be the guy whose turn it is next time. If that liberal Romney loses to Obama.
A playful butt squeeze needn't signal romantic interest, if it's done gracefully.
I believe that the group pic pool has pictures with people's hands on HG's butt. In my memory, she was asking people to grab her butt in a totally non-flirtatious way.
I also think the clock is ticking on Sandusky taking the path you suggested for him.
(Oh, hell, what do I know? That path seems very obvious to me, but he's already proven himself a shameless, grotesque non-man, so maybe not.)
Joe Paterno's reputation has been built on statements about building character and bearing responsibility, yet when the moment came to protect the most vulnerable victims imaginable, he failed to venture even minimal action, much less anything requiring sacrifice.
Has he ever actually done anything to substantiate this reputation? Or has he just talked about it and never gotten caught cheating?
277: Perhaps he knows what awaits him.
278: I think he suspended a couple of players once, but in sports longevity substitutes for every other virtue.
"What's the deal with this Perry guy?"
The usual question is "Hey, where's Perry?"
270: I'm not saying that he wouldn't be better off not fucking up in the debates. Merely that it is still too early to see how the opinions of the attentive will filter down to the people who don't pay close attention until the election gets closer.
As for those people who are paying attention right now, at least among those who vote in the Republican primary, a subset of them is looking for not-Romney for one reason or another. Those people are almost certainly going to go for Perry unless he converts to Islam.
Follow-up to LB re: Paterno's knowledge in 1998: it was a 6-week investigation where the final decision (to close the case) was made by the head of the campus police. Do you continue to think it's plausible outside the courtroom that Paterno, practically the local patriarch, at the time coach for 30-plus years while the President was in his third year of office, never had the facts of the matter whispered in his ear?
282: I think it's plausible that he knew, I also think it's plausible that he didn't know. Don't you think it's the kind of thing people might have protected him from contact with? I don't actually know anything about Paterno's management style, if he's a finger-in-every-pot kind of guy, but if he's not, I could see people keeping him out of the loop so that it wouldn't be his problem.
I don't really care, morally -- what he's admitted to knowing makes him about maximally disgusting for not taking action, so whether or not he knew more is neither here nor there to me. But I generally don't like imputing responsibility on the basis of speculations about what someone must have known.
259: I want to push back at where you're drawing the line between h-flirting, with no sex at all, and "performance of mild attraction" flirting. The latter isn't mostly goal-oriented (that is, you can flirt as part of hitting on someone, but flirting the way I'm thinking of it isn't itself the same as making a pass), and it works fine even where the attraction obviously isn't real (people with the right skillset can do this just fine with members of the gender they're obviously not attracted to).
280: Perry would probably do better trying to run as a semi-aquatic, egglaying mammal of action.
261 could use some more nonflirting love.
I could see people keeping him out of the loop so that it wouldn't be his problem
It has to be his problem -- it's his program, Sandusky was his right-hand man. He can decide to tell people that he doesn't want to know any details, but that's still his call to make.
283: Put that way I suppose I agree. There does seem to be a proud tradition of underlings swinging into damage control very quickly (and in this case, an MO of the abusive transformed into the merely ill-advised by the time it was written down or otherwise became an established allegation).
dude, someone told him "I saw sandusky raping a kid yesterday." FAIL. I join oudemia in co-signing flippanter's comments.
284: Either I was unclear, or you misunderstood (or both!); I don't think I was trying to draw the line you're pushing against. I guess I'd say that h-flirting includes (much) sexy flirting, whereas flirting-with-intent ranges from manipulative to transactional, completely independent of sexiness of intent. Taking the video as our text, the guy's one sexy flirtation (dabbing the cheek of the pretty lady) is in no way distinguishable from his flirtatious magic trick for the guy in the chair. OK, there's physical contact, but if he produces a golden bird from a golden egg for a pretty lady, everyone would agree that was sexy flirting. But it's actually just h-flirting, which looks sexy when it occurs between feasible sexual partners.
In a different, much less interesting video, the cheek dab leads to the bedroom, but it would require additional signaling* to be plausible (setting aside issues of plausibility in a beer commercial); that one little move wouldn't suffice, precisely because it's of a type with how he interacts with basically everyone.
* eg, more flirtation, eye contact from across the room, dancing, etc.
You know, going to a party with lots of m-fun and h-flirting would be a big change from my regular routine. I'm not sure if it would be a welcome break or if I'd just feel like a fish out of water.
He can decide to tell people that he doesn't want to know any details, but that's still his call to make.
That's sort of ambiguously phrased. If his call is explicitly, "If one of my coaches is a child molester, don't tell me about it so I can claim ignorance," he's a monster. If by "his call to make" you mean that he generally conveyed "Don't bother me with anything stressful that isn't football; I want problems to go away with my being told about them" on the other hand, I don't find it implausible that whoever in the administration knew about the '98 investigation might have made Sandusky go away without telling Paterno details.
I'm not making any kind of strong claim about the relative plausibility of Paterno having known or not about the 98 investigation -- it's probably more likely than not that he did. I just don't think it's a slamdunk certainty.
Merely that it is still too early to see how the opinions of the attentive will filter down to the people who don't pay close attention until the election gets closer.
I think this is correct. The main problem with Perry is that he doesn't seem to be learning. He can certainly survive this, but he has to learn how to participate in a debate at some point. It seems likely that he's just not capable of it.
289: Oh, yeah, I'm only arguing about what we can be certain he knew about the '98 investigation, which was about ambiguous fondling rather than rape, and which no one says Paterno was told about. Paterno knew in 2002, by his own admission.
289: Yeah, exactly. Even if you imagine that the witness was so freaked out that he euphemized/circumlocuted, a decent human being says, "Explain to me exactly what you saw, so I understand how serious this is," not, "Yeah, OK, I get the gist. I'll make a phone call." Insofar as Paterno may have deluded himself into thinking that what Sandusky did was more like fondling and less like raping, it was willful and damning, not exculpatory.
293 gets it exactly right. You can overcome all sorts of flubs and gaffes early in primary season, but you need to hit the actual primaries in some sort of stride.
I might add that, because Perry's persona is all cocksure bravado, I don't think that anyone's going to feel sorry for him when opponents run videos of the Oops moment. Something about GWB made enough people like him that they disapproved of mocking his stupidity. I don't think Perry has that kind of shield (pro apologists will feign disapproval, but I mean actual, non-committed voters).
291: m-fun and h-flirting are incompatible; it's hard to be charming when you're fleeing couches falling from the sky.
In conspiracy-theory news, my low-level PSU faculty contacts tell me that there's swirling speculation that although the scandal is clearly and obviously real, the state government orchestrated the timing and manner of it breaking to slap PSU back in line for threatening to go private after funding cuts. I have no idea if this makes any sense, but I report it as the word on the street.
291: If you want m-fun, it turns out you can get it at Penn State:
"And for fun, they were throwing furniture off the roof. Which is actually kind of fun. It's just, when it all hit the ground, they got out lighter fluid and soaked it and lit it on fire."
I don't find it implausible that whoever in the administration knew about the '98 investigation might have made Sandusky go away without telling Paterno details.
You don't find it implausible that someone could make a college coach's defensive coordinator "go away" without telling the coach the details? When he retired suddenly in '99, he was considered one of the best defensive coordinators in the country.
It's barely possibly plausible that Sandusky himself could have conspired to keep Paterno in the dark--"don't tell him any of the details, let me retire and just tell him that I was feeling burned out and wanted more time with my family and my charities".
298. This is the kind of low level conspiracy theory which inevitably emerges from clusterfucks like this. It will never quite go away, but nor will it ever acquire the critical mass of support for anybody to investigate it properly. It'll be just another rancid side effect for the foreseeable future.
If by "his call to make" you mean that he generally conveyed "Don't bother me with anything stressful that isn't football; I want problems to go away with my being told about them" on the other hand, I don't find it implausible that whoever in the administration knew about the '98 investigation might have made Sandusky go away without telling Paterno details.
The guy was his defensive coordinator! He worked for him for 30 years. You can't just get rid of him without Paterno understanding why. "Trust me Joe, you don't want to know!"
300: I have no idea what happened there, but it is certainly plausible that Paterno was left with the impression that there wasn't enough evidence to actually convict Sandusky* because he knew the police investigated and that charges were not filed. That kind of thing happens all the time without any intent to cover-up.
*I'm speaking to the '98 investigation only.
302: See 300 last, which seems plausible to me.
Again, none of what I'm saying is any defense at all for Paterno, who's a worthless sack of shit. And I'm not arguing that I'm convinced he didn't know about the 98 investigation, like I said, if I had to pick knew or didn't know, knew is probably more likely. I just don't like certainty about what someone 'must have known' based on speculation.
How about the thing where a group goes to dinner and one person orders for everyone? I've encountered this often at Chinese restaurants where a Chinese dude refuses to let anyone else order.
Augh I have so been there. This was at the small chain of Szechuan places in NYC everyone likes on account of they're so goddamn good. I had been through this before with the Orderer in question, husband of a friend, and he always got some things like beef tendon, and I didn't eat red meat at the time*, besides which it's just fucking presumptuous even if you know the stuff on the menu. So I was like "hey there's something I'm really in the mood for; anyone mind if I just get myself a plate of that?" and then he proceeded to make everyone at the table incredibly uncomfortable with a display of bewilderment that I would not go along with the group ordering, seriously wouldn't let it drop for like five minutes at which point I think I just gave in incredulously and ate his favorite dishes. As you can see, I'm still mad about it.
*beef tendons: neither red nor meat. Discuss.
305: the source on that is sports talk radio's answer to Limbaugh. Fat, blustery, ignorant, loaded with self-regard, and usually full of shit. Oh yeah, and ratings gold.
Also "also a former World Championship Wrestling color commentator", says Wikipedia.
308: yeah.
Does promos for a local strip club, frequently hosts porn actresses on the radio, and reputed to take liberties with the employees of the aforementioned club.
A fine specimen of a human being.
I didn't know about any of that, but I've never been able to listen to his show. I know somebody who was suing him or about to but got an on-air retraction.
Don't know anything about the radio host, but his April column holds up pretty well. One does have to wonder, as Madden does, why Sandusky was never talked about for jobs elsewhere.
Although I hastily add that the speculation about Sandusky pimping out kids to Second Mile donors seems to have no basis and is therefore loathsome.
229: But... flirting is useless for gauging actual romantic interest. It always was, more or less. All it's a gauge of is whether someone wants to feel attractive or charming.
You know, I thought I had a pretty good handle on flirting, being able to recognize it when on the receiving end, and being able to do it if so moved, but this just has me at a loss. If flirting is useless for gauging actual romantic interest, how is one to begin to determine when/if there is or may be actual romantic interest?
I tend to view flirting as a provisional testing of the waters. If instead I should view it as something any person may do at any time with anyone, I'm forced to move it over to the "meaningless" column. How does one signal intent, then? This strikes me as just silly.
This was at the small chain of Szechuan places in NYC everyone likes on account of they're so goddamn good
Is this Grand Sichuan? Love to know the name...
315: I think the deal is that if you and the flirter are in circumstances where romance (this is a stupid word, but I'm stuck for anything less drippy sounding that includes everything I'm talking about) is plausible, flirting can but doesn't necessarily mean interest, and you have to sort of pay attention to check if they flirt with everyone equally, or flirt back a little and see if they step it up or not, or figure it out somehow. If it's not plausible (you're both happily married, you're only sitting next to each other for five minutes on a ski lift and will never see each other again, you're the wrong gender), then you know it's just playful.
you're only sitting next to each other for five minutes on a ski lift
This seems like terrible example of circumstances in which flirting could not plausibly be intended to signal romantic interest.
These people who say any mutual application of (say) charm is flirting are bizarre. OTOH, I don't have a word for it. Probably something from the German exists.
I guess if it didn't get to exchanging phone numbers, I'd assume that you'd never see each other again. Playful socializing, but not actual romantic intent.
Look, Sandusky was not only Paterno's top assistant, but one of the best assistant coaches in the country. Who bizarrely retired at the absolute prime of his career, without seeking another head coaching job (which he almost certainly could have gotten at the time). Sandusky needed some kind of very plausible explanation to give to Paterno as to why this was happening. It just completely strains credulity to think that (a) in a small town that Paterno effectively controlled, he would have known nothing about the 1998 investigation, and (b) that there could have been widespread knowledge of the 1998 investigation by people around Paterno, followed by Sandusky's bizarre retirement, and Paterno knew nothing about it and never bothered to follow up. It's not literally impossible, but it's extraordinarily unlikely.
Also there must be a German word for the frustrated knowledge that a German word for something exists.
I guess if it didn't get to exchanging phone numbers, I'd assume that you'd never see each other again. Playful socializing, but not actual romantic intent.
How does that follow at all? If you're not likely to see each other again, then the flirting must just have been unromantic playful socializing? Why?
If it didn't get to exchanging phone numbers, I'd assume that more likely than not at least one person was skiing away from the top of the lift thinking "dammit, why didn't I get his/her number?"
I think the deal is that if you and the flirter are in circumstances where romance (this is a stupid word, but I'm stuck for anything less drippy sounding that includes everything I'm talking about) getting a room is plausible, flirting can but doesn't necessarily mean interest, and you have to sort of pay attention to check if they flirt with everyone equally, or flirt back a little and see if they step it up or not, or figure it out somehow.
Fixed that for you.
you have to sort of pay attention to check if they flirt with everyone equally, or flirt back a little and see if they step it up or not, or figure it out somehow
Okay. Phew. That's pretty much what I do, sure, so I guess I'm still on the same page with the rest of humankind.
Of course, being me, I might eventually come out and ask if there is intent here. Sometimes this embarrasses people, but you know, a person has to double-check. Clearly one has to be on the lookout for h-flirters.
Paterno knew. McQueary went to his house the next day about it.
326 -- right. I thought LB was working on the more narrow question of whether Paterno knew about the 1998 investigation at the time it was being conducted, or prior to Sandusky's retirement as defensive coordinator in 1999. The knowledge in 2002 is enough to damn Paterno without any reference to what went down in 1998, of course, but it also seems very unlikely to me that Paterno didn't know about the 1998 investigation more or less contemporaneously, or at least prior to Sandusky's early retirement.
I'm hoping the PSU football/pedophile scandal will die down shortly, since it is invading every thread these days. And has its own dedicated thread now.
A gentleman would keep the PSU scandal on the proper thread.
Is this Grand Sichuan?
That's the one!
323: It can be sexualized, but if you know you're not going to see each other again it's not an expression of interest or intent in taking it any further. So sexualized playfulness, but playful rather than serious.
Forgetting the 1998 investigation, let me point out once again the different evidence from 1998 that indicates at best incomprehensibly bad judgment on the part of Paterno/"a whole lot of othr people involved with Penn State football". Victim 4 ca. 1998 (*not* the one who triggered the investigation--a young teen a few years older) reportedly traveled to bowl games, at times ate at the coaches' table, and was also on occasion with Sandusky (and abused by him) at the local resort where the team (and some of the coaches) stayed the night before home games. Maybe people were not aware of exactly where the kid fell in the perverse world of "Jerry's Kids" (he adopted six and had the charity thing going) and assumed it was "OK". But my God--and even if in the remotest scenario, Paterno knew nothing of the '988 investigation and was completely shocked by the 2002 revelation he certainly had enough information to connect the dots and understand the magnitude of the issue (not that the one incident itself was not enough).
And it is of course exactly the kind of thing that launches the fantasies of the Madden's on this world.
But if you want conspiracy. I will rep-port the link to the NY Times story on the missing/presumed dead DA from 1998 who googled how to destroy a hard drive.
315: If flirting is useless for gauging actual romantic interest, how is one to begin to determine when/if there is or may be actual romantic interest?
Well, I always thought it was traditional to signal this by asking someone out on a date. Perhaps preceded by hitting on them a little. (Hitting on someone seems to me very different from flirting with them, though obviously there's something of a grey area there.)
I suspect I'm going to continue the way I have been, which hasn't seemed to be problematic. True, there have been a few times I've been unsure whether flirting behavior had romantic intent (and may have blown it); there have equally been times I've been out to dinner with a man and been unsure whether it was a date. I sometimes revert to simply asking, "Is this a date?"
In the restaurant subthread, some Chinese places take the thing of having a Chinese and a non-Chinese menu to surprising extremes. As in, "profiling" customers as they get seated or reserve, marking their card, and passing this information to the kitchen with the orders.
I'd heard of this, but not seen it in action, until I had dinner in a rather good Sichuan restaurant in Birmingham, and noticed that both our order and the bill had a field labelled "Spicy Hot Degree", filled in with something ("honky"? "go easy on the poor fool"? "he looked at my legs, chef, up the chilli and burn the fucker's head off")? in Chinese characters. Google tells me this field name is widely used.
What stuck with me was that it was part of a computer-printed form - somewhere, somebody had run 'ALTER TABLE; INSERT COLUMN spicy_hot_degree VARCHAR(256) NOT NULL;' .
A friend went to a Sichuan restaurant in Beijing and ordered the "4 chili chicken". The waitress said, "No!" Being that kind of guy he made a scene about it until she ordered it for him. So she stood over him and made him eat it. All.
ObClassicSketch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdo79znnHl8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
New England PSA: There is a preposterously good small chain (I've only been to the one in Billerica) of Sichuan restaurants in and around Boston by the name of Sichuan Gourmet (老四川). Best sichuan food I've had in the states, and just about the equal of anything I had in sichuan.
New England PSA: The British are coming.
Old England PSA: the Duke of Normandy is coming.
Modern English PSA: The world is stopping and I'm melting. With you.
foolishmortal, thanks. I can't get my boyfriend to go to Chinese restaurants, because he hates bad chinese food so much that he's afraid to go to any Chinese restaurant.
Prostate-specific antigen?
Production Services Association?
Please See Attached?
Port of Singapore Authority?
Baltimore PSA: I have a colony for Catholics.