Oh, wow. What a charmer this gentleman was.
I admit that I'm naive as to the ways of the world, but the logistics of this arrangement seem needlessly complicated. Also, isn't "pay for her cab" sort of a standard thing for the guy to do?
Good lord.
With the orgasm thing, I think some guys just assume that most women don't have them, or only have them with great difficulty, so if he puts in a half-hearted effort for a couple minutes and nothing happens, he's off the hook.
Argh.
What seems complicated?
I wouldn't expect someone who wasn't as financially comfortable to pay for my cab fare, actually. I don't know what's standard.
so if he puts in a half-hearted effort for a couple minutes and nothing happens, he's off the hook.
Idiots. But I appreciate them lowering the bar. Then when the rest of us acutally put effort into this stuff it's transforms "minimal reciprocation" into "that was great!"
Bwaahahahahahaha.
Is this a case where feminism can't raise its ugly head?
What about equality? As a male, I'm confused - at what point are you saying that the cab fare is payment he ought to pay for sex, or is it something else? This is not meant to give you trouble, but I would be hesitant to assume that you wanted "to be taken care of" and can fully understand a position where he would not so assume either. As far as orgasms go, ladies, well, you're on your own. For me, thirty years with the same georgeous woman, I'm in heaven and the issue doesn't even come up.
I realize you had an agenda and all, and feel you got something done, but you'll have to speak about this, when you're not sitting across the table from him, unless you let it go until you don't care.
Let's hope there's somebody else before that.
I guess he only pays for orgasms. If you don't come, he don't pay. You gotta make with the screams if you wants the greens.
Also: in a year of random NYC hookups, not one guy I dated handed me money for a cab. I think that would have made me feel like a whore. I took the approach of keeping them up all night so they had to let me stay until the sun came up and it was safe to go home. Seriously, I remember finishing with someone around three AM and then thinking, "If I keep this up until seven, I can catch a decent home!"
that was supposed to be "a decent train home"
You gotta make with the screams if you wants the greens.
Awesome. You should comment drunk more often.
7: No, cab fare is not payment for sex. Cab fare is a nice thing he does for the woman he just had sex with to help her get home safely and comfortably because he is somewhat selfishly kicking her out and forcing her to go home late at night, instead of the next morning, when it's safer and the trains run more regularly. All the same would obtain if the genders were reversed.
Under all of the circumstances, some of which I chose not to elaborate on in the post, he knew very well I wanted to be taken care of.
Oh, God. It was Drink-All-Day Day.
I suppose it's the idea of having a particular person mentally filed away under "non-relationship sex" that seems complicated. Advanced planning doesn't really figure much into what I think of hooking up.
I almost forgot: Congrats on the nongrahamular sex!
My friend Mark and I had a discussion about this once. He said that there were four possible rules for this:
1. The person who initiates the hookup pays.
2. The person who doesn't travel pays.
3. The person who decides not to have a sleepover pays.
4. The guy always pays.
Cab fare is a nice thing he does for the woman he just had sex with to help her get home safely and comfortably because he is somewhat selfishly kicking her out and forcing her to go home late at night, instead of the next morning, when it's safer and the trains run more regularly. All the same would obtain if the genders were reversed.
It's rude and inconsiderate, for sure.
In my experience situations like this usually arise when the person in question has never been in your position. I.e., never felt like $40 in cab fare was A Significant (Unanticipated) Expenditure.
It surprises me how many people don't have a social circle, in their adult life, that leads them to be able to make those kinds of compassionate imaginative leaps. I dunno, maybe having the social circle isn't the variable.
The flip side: the man I saw jogging this evening, who started whistling when he was about a block behind the lone other person (woman) on the dark street. Kept up his pace, didn't crowd her - I thought it was remarkably considerate.
The cab fare thing works like this: if you are the person staying home, and the other person is being kicked out into the night, you do not say, "do you need to go to an ATM?" You ask if the person has cash, and if they don't, you offer them some, so that they can get home more quickly b/c being kicked out into the night fucking sucks. And if you don't have any cash on you, you at least have the grace to apologize for that, and then perhaps you put some fucking pants on and walk *with* your friend to the ATM, since it's your neighborhood and you know where the goddamn things are.
I mean, really. Even if you *didn't* just fuck someone, wouldn't you do that?
You gotta make with the screams if you wants the greens.
Agree with w-lfs-n--that's a great line.
For the record, he did walk with me to the subway.
All right, that mitigates slightly, but still. Jeez.
I bet it's probably like Witt says, that he's so class-isolated he has no idea that a $40 cab might be a hardship for anyone. Even if they spent the whole night talking about Tia's skintness and his wealth, it may not have occurred to him at the right time, in which case, he's a fucking asshole and deserves rejection.
well yeah. I think he should have paid my fare.
I've never had this experience before, because in all my New York sex having, which hasn't been that extensive, I've always been welcome to stay the night.
I read the post to say and want to believe the rejection has already been decided on, and she want the opportunity to do it explicitly. He ought to hear it whether or not he'll learn anything.
Well, I can see the possibility that he was broke himself for some reason--unexpected bills that month or whatever, tomorrow's payday, who knows--or that he wasn't sure what to do, or that he didn't want to embarrass you by seeming to treat you like a hooker ("hey babe, thanks! Here's $40"). But even so, you still make some kind of gesture at apologizing for the person having to fucking schlep home in the middle of the night. Or, like you said in the post, Tia, once it becomes clear that the cab thing ain't happening, you say, look, why don't you spend the night, and then you get up early the next morning, see the person to the door, and go back to bed.
Not making you welcome to spend the night is the inconsiderate thing here. Anyone who invites someone back to their house for sex should make their guest welcome to stay the night. Even a hook up should get the hookee a warm bed for the night and an offer of pop-tarts in the morning. Anything else is just rude. Anyone who is unwilling to do that at least shouldn't invite guests back to their home at all.
The way one of my friends handles the "don't make her feel like a hooker" thing is walk down, put her in the cab, and pay the driver directly for what the likely fare is going to be (which probably does involve slightly overpaying to be on the safe side).
And if a hookup will not involve spending the night, that needs to be brought up pre-sex because it may change the equation on whether it's going to happen.
The way one of my friends handles the "don't make her feel like a hooker" thing is ....
I just knew you were gong to complete that sentence as "...he leaves the money on the night table in an envelope." I have nothing useful to contribute; it seems unimaginable that Tia doesn't get invited to stay.
First thing, since it's my only subway issue (I have far fewer reasons to consider safety-wise and I don't go to Brooklyn often enough to have really long rides): Did you have anything to read?
Okay. Fucking unacceptable. It would have been one thing if you had just said you were going to take the train and he let you, but the fact that you were like "yeah, let's put me into a cab" until he said "do you need to go to an ATM" makes it clear to him that you didn't want to pay for a cab. At that point, he should have ponied up. I don't care how much money he makes. If his precious sleep schedule dictates that he is kicking you out, he pays for the damn cab. That's the price of sleep.
At any rate, I think the "sleeping in" is lame. If you're going to have sex with someone, you let them stay the night. Period.
The way one of my friends handles the "don't make her feel like a hooker" thing is walk down, put her in the cab, and pay the driver directly for what the likely fare is going to be (which probably does involve slightly overpaying to be on the safe side).
Agreed--but I'm kind of surprised to say that I've only met one or two men in my life who knew how to do this sort of thing. It's worth learning.
But basically I'm with the folks who say, booty call should definitely = offer to spend the night.
that he didn't want to embarrass you by seeming to treat you like a hooker
The following is repeated hearsay which I believe:
My friend meets this girl in a coffee shop. They make eyes at each other, talk, and go back to his place to have sex. They do, and then she realizes she left her pocketbook and cell phone at the coffee shop. He gives her money to take a cab there. She cries a bunch. He gathers that said crying was because she felt like was being paid for sex, I'm not sure how. He doesn't know how to deal with the issue. She leaves.
Story really happened to a friend; I'd admit if it were me.
But basically I'm with the folks who say, booty call should definitely = offer to spend the night.
Agreed. I'd say the best way to handle it is genuinely offer to let her spend the night and, if she declines, do the classy cab ride send off. Doesn't he realize that a bad hookup experience this time makes future hookups less likely? And future hookups with any of your friends less likely, too, as they will probably hear how he handled things indelicately?
Hell, even if you don't have sex, if it's late, there should be an offer. I had someone over a few weeks ago, and while there was some action, for complicated reasons (I like this phrase) there was no sex, but it was 3 am and he would have had to walk about .6 miles (because bus no longer running) to the train. So even though it would have been weird to sleep in the same bed with someone I wasn't having sex with, I invited him to stay over, and he thoughtfully offered to sleep on the futon, and he did and everything was fine.
Paul has it exactly right in 28. A sleep-over is expected. If for some reason (and sleeping in is not a sufficient reason), one cannot have a sleep-over, then payment for a cab is proper. Especially from the UWS to Park Slope (right?). I mean, the D isn't even running local this weekend. He's an asshole.
"She told me she worked in the morning and started to laugh,
I said I didn't and crawled off to sleep in the bath..."
Does everyone agree with me that the other part of the hookup/sleepover rule is that the host must provide coffee in the morning? I had a guy once who didn't have any, and I damn well sat my ass on his couch until he came back with some from the local coffee shop.
39: "said" s/b "told her"
(Just sayin'.)
Oh, and about the orgasm thing. Seriously, what is wrong with dudes? This same thing has happened to me on mutiple occasions.
some guys just assume that most women don't have them, or only have them with great difficulty
I think this is true for a lot of women, but it doesn't matter. The guy should put in a legitimate effort, because, hey, you know, even if there is no orgasm, those attempts at facilitating them feel good (as long as he's not a total idiot). I hate that men are so orgasm-centric that once you've had sex a few times and they haven't been able to get you off, they just stop even trying.
I say legitimate effort required. Every time.
40: Or at least money for coffee.
40: What if the host is not a coffee drinker?
40: What if the host is not a coffee drinker?
Apparently the host is obligated to go to a coffee shop.
I think they are obligated to go to a coffee shop on a weekend day. On a weekday, well, that may be asking too much.
IMO.
This is where living in NYC rules. You can get coffee and pancakes delivered.
Also, no sleepover means no possibility for morning sex. So, really, not extending the offer is just cheating yourself.
42: Word.
I have thought to myself that it would be an interesting experiment if I ever date again (though stories like Tia's make me wonder if I want to) to insist that the guy get me off, then promptly roll over and go to sleep. Or get up and get dressed. Or just make it clear somehow that the festivities were over. I wonder what the reaction would be.
Furthermore, the coffee should either be espresso, or brewed using approximately 2 tablespoons grounds per 6 ounces filtered water.
49: Depends on how last night was, doesn't it?
The way one of my friends handles the "don't make her feel like a hooker" thing is walk down, put her in the cab, and pay the driver directly for what the likely fare is going to be (which probably does involve slightly overpaying to be on the safe side).
Howabout driving her home? (Yes, at 4 am, done that repeatedly.) Is that allowed? I wouldn't put a female into a cab to ride alone. Not around here, anyways.
P.S. After reading this thread, I never want to have sex again.
max
['I think I'm just going to move to Antartica.']
insist that the guy get me off, then promptly roll over and go to sleep
I've done this. The reaction was a little perplexed, but hey, he wanted to see me again.
I don't know how a reaction can be perplexed. What I mean is, his reaction was to be perplexed.
I should be doing the work that I'm staying up to do, but I want to gripe about one other thing. You know what guys sometimes say that sort of irritates me, and that he said last night? "You have no idea how sexy you are." How the fuck do you know I have no idea? You've been giving me some idea for the past forty minutes or so. Sheesh.
the festivities
This is a good euphemism.
You have no idea how sexy you are
You know, I never realized how lame that is. That's fucking stupid! Next time one of us hears that, should say "actually, yeah, I do."
You know, I never realized how lame that is. That's fucking stupid! Next time one of us hears that, should say "actually, yeah, I do."
Cripes, y'all are tough.
Telling her over and over he wants to keep seeing her, and the "don't know how sexy you are" suggests he thinks he's trying. If so, that makes it a bit grimmer; if he were merely absurdly entitled, he wouldn't seem so clueless.
As a male, I'm confused
It's just a phase.
I wouldn't put a female into a cab to ride alone.
And women—what's your cab policy with them?
"You have no idea how sexy you are." How the fuck do you know I have no idea?
You have an intellectual idea, but you don't know it from the inside. So to speak. Read this (which I haven't read) and get back to me.
Actually, that phrase doesn't bother me. It just seems like a throwaway compliment.
However, I really really hate the word "sexy" unless it's used to describe thesis topics or architecture or something like that.
Next Tia will claim she knows what it's like to be a bat because she's seen one flying around.
Honestly!
This is a good euphemism.
I had a friend who referred to condoms as "party hats for the party." I don't know whether he made it up or not.
You have no idea how sexy you are? but if you ask me? you're pretty hot?
Suppose it's phrased as a question?
What, like, "You have no idea how sexy you are? Well I do, and you are damn sexy."?
Ben w-lfs-n, on the other hand, is not sexy at all.
"Do you know how sexy you are?" would be fine. I just don't like someone trying to cast me into some ingenue role.
69: You mean because it's always earnestly meant? Agree with DA on the use of "sexy."
Guy: Do you know how sexy you are?
Tia: Why yes, yes I do.
Guy: Okay, just checking.
Wait, what's wrong with "sexy"? What are they supposed to say about how you look?
68 is a question, so I'm not sure how it could be wrong. 67, of course, is totally wrong.
51 is so true. And really, if you don't have coffee, but you do have guests, stock some goddamn coffee in the freezer. If it's in an airtight container it won't go back that quickly. Or, you know, most cities have a fucking coffee shop like a block away where you can pick up a latte while your guest gets dressed/takes a shower. Because, people, you simply do not send someone out into the cold cruel world in a morning without some caffeine.
Also, running out of condoms is a bad idea, and will result in mockery.
Also, running out of condoms is a bad idea, and will result in mockery.
What if your ejaculate is just that copious?
Also, running out of condoms is a bad idea, and will result in mockery.
Or a kid.
What are they supposed to say about how you look?
Anything but "sexy." "Hot", "beautiful", whatever.
As for "you have no idea how sexy you are": how would you know exactly how sexy you are? All you know from his response is that he thinks you're sexy. But you probably don't know whether you're a 5 or a 10 on the sexy scale. Or an 11 out of 10.
So it's a fair statement.
To me, "sexy" is like "classy"; only appropriate when used by Ron Burgandy
Then there's the eternal "pussy" v. "cunt" question. I prefer "cunt".
69 and 74: crap, I meant to say that 62 was totally wrong.
What's lame about the statement is the person is telling you how you feel about yourself. That's obnoxious. Plus, (absent some actual knowledge that the woman in question does not think she's sexy) it's norm-shaping as to the notion that women have low self-esteem.
The colloquial meaning of that statement is "you are more sexy than you think you are." (I suppose it could also be "you are less sexy than you think you are," but I doubt anyone would use it in that way). I assert that the recipient of that comment has a much better idea of their own sexiness than any other person could.
I have no problem with the word "sexy," but shit, if you're going to try and and give a compliment, at least be specific. E.g. You have a sexy _______. Or, the way you _______ is sexy. Or, the way your ________ looks when _________ is sexy. Effort, man.
Ben w-lfs-n, on the other hand, is not sexy at all.
Lies! Ben is teh sexiest!
I knew a guy who used to say things like, "my god, you're so sexy." I didn't mind.
And no condoms does not result in a kid. It results in no sex.
87 - Yes, Ben. All the boys at the Mineshaft think so.
And as long as we're talking about nomenclature, no body part should ever, ever be referred to as "nips."
No one said anything about no condoms, B.
OTOH, the problem with the nomenclature rules is the number of people who get all freaked out and won't talk at all for fear of saying the wrong thing.
I think that part of the pre-hookup negotiations should be, "ok, so let's talk about verbiage. Which word do you prefer . . . ?"
E.g. You have a sexy _______. Or, the way you _______ is sexy. Or, the way your ________ looks when _________ is sexy.
sex / sex / sex / sexing
Once you run out, you have no condoms, Teo.
69 and 74: crap, I meant to say that 62 was totally wrong.
I think it's probably true that Tia doesn't have the same subjective experience of her sexiness that the dude does.
95: Go back and look at 80 and 81 again.
85: given a choice between "cunt" and "pussy", I'll take "cunt". But how about "fluffy sausage wallet"?
I think that part of the pre-hookup negotiations should be, "ok, so let's talk about verbiage. Which word do you prefer . . . ?"
You could probably fit the "what sort of compliments do you prefer" issue in there, somewhere.
(97 to 93, by the way. In case anyone was wondering.)
"You have no idea how sexy you are."
Next time one of us hears that, should say "actually, yeah, I do."
I can see evaluating that attempted compliment negatively because it's not clever or it's clichéd. And I think if I said that I'd awkwardly add, "Actually, maybe you do know; I wanted to tell you anyway."* But I don't think I find compliments problematic when the person hasn't carefully considered their truth, as long as they're sincerely meant. Isn't that how everyone deals with them?
*As evidence that I'd say that, either immediately or slightly later, an anecdote about the ways of washerdreyer. I couple a weeks ago, I sent a girl I'm sort of interested in and have known for a long time a text saying, "I'm in your neighborhood, if you're around" (unnecesseary comma included for versimilitude). A little later I added, "Actually, I'm in your neighborhood whether or not you're around."
[On preview, I've fallen way behind.]
given a choice between "cunt" and "pussy", I'll take "cunt".
That's actually pretty surprising to me; I'd always thought that...the latter word was the worst one could use.
This is cute, ladies. I apologize to my brethren for letting the cat out of the bag, but the rest of "You have no idea how sexy you are..." is "...and neither do I, actually, because the only opinion that matters is that of my guy friends, and I won't be able to show them the film from the camera in the closet until tomorrow, so it's best that you leave before I get entangled in anything that's going to make them think less of me."
I prefer both "cunt" and "pussy" to "voted for Rudy Giuliani".
93: Yeah, but I think there are reasonable words to use in the absence of the discussion. Even though I don't really like the word "pussy," I wouldn't fault someone for using it. But if someone, were to say, say, "love-box," I would be startled.
105: Cancer has made you bitter, my friend.
Isn't that how everyone deals with them?
What if the compliment were sincerely meant but was so disastrously wrong it indicated that the complimentor (or complimentrix) had just completely misapprehended you or that part of you h/s complimented?
103 - You should have totally sent another followup text explaining the concept of a biscuit conditional.
104: I hate "pussy" even more than I hate "sexy."
And don't get me started on "panties."
And really, if you don't have coffee, but you do have guests, stock some goddamn coffee in the freezer.
And have a french press.
Abstaining from coffee is dangerous and wrong headed.
Ogged! You have no idea how sexy you are!
Washerdreyer, rocking the biscuit conditionals. Now that's sexy.
And don't get me started on "panties."
What is it about "panties" that makes so many women hate the term?
Yeah, good coffee + french press = return visits.
Pussy > Cunt
Also hate the word "panties" for being too precious.
And don't get me started on "panties."
Lovin' DA today. You may also have kids with Joe D.
I had a friend who referred to condoms as "party hats for the party."
Will not embarass said party by saying who, but yes, I've heard 'party hat' as a euphemism before, too.
"You have no idea how sexy you are", to me, has always come across as a compliment, with fun undertones of 'Wow! You can't know, because not only am I amazed just now at how attracted I am, but because if you did know how much power your perfect [ass, whatever] has over me, you couldn't be this non-chalant about it. You would use your powers for EVIL.' I never took it as implying I had low self-esteem. It's always the sort of compliment that comes as an aside because the light fell just right.
115: It's just icky. It sounds like something Humbert Humbert would say. I think it's the diminutive.
it's the diminutive
Boobies! Hooray!
When does this "pussy / cunt" thing come up? What is this, 9-ball? Are the kids calling their shots nowadays?
What would people prefer instead of "panties"? That's the part that's always confused me.
There is a joke I no longer remember, but which was popular at my junior high in the way that dirty jokes become popular among teenage boys, whose punchline resembles the last clause of 85.
115: I've thought about this a lot but have no real answer. It is interesting that so many people hate this word. "Underwear" is a perfectly serviceable word.
Also, almost everybody I know hates the word "moist." It makes my own skin crawl.
When does this "pussy / cunt" thing come up? What is this, 9-ball? Are the kids calling their shots nowadays?
When you're writing love letters to your inamorata/us and are including blue language you don't intend to be in the final draft, it's important to choose with just which words you'll express your secret longings so that, when said inamorata/us encounters your initial attempts, it will have just the right effect on him/her.
122 is brilliant. I don't think I have a preference for 'pussy' or 'cunt' because I really don't want a play-by-play.
129: I see you learned something from Atonement after all.
That should either be "inamoratus/a" throughout, or "her/him" at the end.
122 - Yes, Shutting The Fuck Up is usually the best option of all.
122: "You have a beautiful _____." "I love the way your _______ tastes." Q: "What do you want me to do while you masturbate?" A: "Put your fingers inside my _____." Etc.
When does this "pussy / cunt" thing come up? What is this, 9-ball? Are the kids calling their shots nowadays?
It's called "dirty talk." And/or "inquiry."
127: But how do you distinguish between men's and women's underwear? And between bras and, um, y'see?
109: I considered saying that, but as evidenced by the start of my comment (saying that compliments might be downgraded for being clichéd), I was mentioning what I took to be providing a general rule applicable in a majority of cases.
Still 109:
complimentrix
Can I enlist your support in my quest to re-title NYU L. Rev's Editor-in-Chief, who happens to be a woman, Editrix-in-Chief?
'You have a beautiful ____???' People say things like that?
I need to get out more.
Or what 136 said (dirty talk, dirty talk, inquiry).
Or what 135 said (dirty talk, dirty talk, inquiry).
men's and women's underwear
Pretty much just like that.
Q: "What do you want me to do while you masturbate?"
A: Run out and get some damn coffee.
w/d in 139: yes.
I actually also got the beautiful line from this guy. Maybe his fitting punishment will be having a blow by blow of our time together on an Unfogged comment thread.
I hope to one day regain my ability to write a comment, other than a comment which corrects a previous one, that isn't fucked up in any way.
138: ??? Why do you need to distinguish? "Are these yours?" "Nice underwear!" or "Pretty lingerie!" or "I can't find my underwear" or whatever--I mean, isn't the distinction always going to be clear in context??
teo, bras don't count as underwear when saying 'underwear.' Maybe 'underthings' if you want to talk about everything under.
138: Well, the context usually helps. If you ask a woman, "can I take off your underwear?", I think she'll know what you're talking about.
But how do you distinguish between men's and women's underwear? And between bras and, um, y'see?
Bras are bras, underwear goes on your ass.
We don't need to distinguish between men's and women's underwear; we don't distinguish between men's and women's jeans or men's and women's socks, etc.
A: "Put your fingers inside my _____."
That reminds me of my commencement.
If you ask a woman, "can I take off your underwear?", I think she'll know what you're talking about.
It might seem that way to us sophisticates, but for many people transvestism still seems strange and foreign.
143: Granted. Some people don't know how to do it.
Context can also make it possible to use "you" in place of "your ____" in many sentences.
See, this is what happens when I comment on the sex threads.
Also:
Q: "What do you want me to do while you masturbate?" A: "Put your fingers inside my _____."
Tia is the hero.
155: bingo.
Tia's blanks could lead to a fun game of MadLibs.
Or:
Tia's ____ could lead to a fun game of ____.
______ ____ ___ ______ __ _____ ___
However, I really really hate the word "sexy" unless it's used to describe thesis topics or architecture or something like that.
Counterexample: In Sideways, Miles describes a red wine as sexy. I believe one of my roommates has also done this, but might be mistaken. Either way, it's annoying. I know the same roommate once said, referring to a pre-arranged table at a restaurant, "Why don't you make a rezzy for that?" I said, "I don't know what you're talking about." Also we're good friends and I'm a bad person for once again bad-mouthing him online.
_: ____ __ ___ ____ __ __ __ _____ ___ __________?
_: ___ ____ _______ _____ __!
I often say, "why don't you make a sexy for that"; referring, of course, to sexervations.
Making too many sexies can lead to eny.
I don't take sexervations.
First come, then served (hey-o!).
Making too many sexies can lead to eny.
An acute obsy.
I don't particularly like the use of "sexy" for thesis topics, but I do know a student who, in the presence of two professors, in a classroom situation, in commenting on another student's paper, used the following terms to say that the paper needed a longer introduction and conclusion: "not enough foreplay, and not enough cuddling."
From 42:
The guy should put in a legitimate effort, because, hey, you know, even if there is no orgasm, those attempts at facilitating them feel good (as long as he's not a total idiot).
It's hard for guys to imagine how a failure to achieve orgasm could feel good.
I hate that men are so orgasm-centric that once you've had sex a few times and they haven't been able to get you off, they just stop even trying.
Why try when you know failure will ensue?
It's hard for guys to imagine how a failure to achieve orgasm could feel good.
It is?
It's hard for guys to imagine how a failure to achieve orgasm could feel good.
Stuff and nonsense.
Why try when you know failure will ensue?
Why try at all, really? After all, who cares?
"pussy" v. "cunt"
What, no love for the yoni?
It's hard for guys to imagine how a failure to achieve orgasm could feel good.
I have a very hard time believing that. Unless your experience of receiving a blowjob is "ho hum.. ho hum.. HOLY SHIT."
Duh.
170: Or rather, how the good feeling could outweigh the feeling of frustration.
Why try at all, really? After all, who cares?
Exactly. Avoid sex entirely.
It's hard for guys to imagine how a failure to achieve orgasm could feel good.
Stuff and nonsense.
Why? Of course it would depend on what the woman was in it for, exactly, which would require saying what they were in it for, which would be all wrong because it would spoil the mood.
SB: And women—what's your cab policy with them?
Terminal ICBM ride from my personal Fortress of Darkness.
What's yours?
ash
['I really should changed my name back over.']
172: No love for the yoni.
174: Indeed. I'd really rather just have sex without any arousal at all, to avoid frustration and failure. Go ahead, dear, I'll just watch tv while you finish up.
My friend knows a guy named Yoni. I don't think the guy in question knew (when she knew him; in junior high) that his name was basically 'vagina.'
173: If it's interrupted before finishing, I generally wish it hadn't started at all.
My heart isn't in defending these position, though, because of my initial error in saying "guys" rather than "I". Those terms are not synonymous.
it would depend on what the woman was in it for
Are there women who don't like their sex partners to do things that arouse them? I don't know of any.
Are all women happy when their sex partners arouse them but don't bring them to orgasm?
I'm not a woman, but I'm not. See 178.
It can be likened to a sneeze that fails to sneeze.
Seems to me a big part of the problem is that a lot of guys don't get that it's not a lot of women can't orgasm, it's that a lot of women can't orgasm solely with intercourse. So "attempts to facillitate" all too often involves more thrusting or a different position. Once that doesn't work they figure they triied everything.
More to the point, are there women or men who don't like their sex partners to be aroused? Because if there aren, I don't want to know them.
If it's interrupted before finishing, I generally wish it hadn't started at all.
That should be pretty easy to ensure, right? "Hey, baby, if you touch my cock, you better finish me off, or else don't bother," would pretty much take care of it, I'd think.
It can be likened to a sneeze that fails to sneeze.
Sounds exquisite.
Q: Are all women happy when their sex partners arouse them but don't bring them to orgasm?
A: Why try when you know failure will ensue?
Also, "What would you like me to do while you masturbate?" is an underrated question.
If it's interrupted before finishing, I generally wish it hadn't started at all.
Um, that's horrible. You should probably just tell women that, maybe that'll solve your problem.
That should be pretty easy to ensure, right? "Hey, baby, if you touch my cock, you better finish me off, or else don't bother," would pretty much take care of it, I'd think.
No one would actually say that, it would be intimidating. But the frustration does exist. What's wrong with admitting that?
Are there women who don't like their sex partners to do things that arouse them? I don't know of any.
And then there are the approximately 100% of women who don't get enough sex from their SO's. Never met any of those in person, but clearly they exist.
At any rate, the answer to your question is all that all men are wrong, of course.
ash
['Do dah.']
Along with, "show/tell me how you like to be touched" or "show/tell me how to make you come" or "show/tell me what feels good" and so on, and so on, and so on.
Jeez.
sexually frustrated != don't get enough sex.
See 42.
187: What's wrong with being able to help yourself?
No one would actually say that, it would be intimidating. But the frustration does exist. What's wrong with admitting that?
Dude, you're discouraging chicks from giving a casual grope. Knock it off.
a lot of women can't orgasm solely with intercourse
Q: What would you like me to do while you masturbate?
A: Put your ______ in my ________.
Problem solved.
Boy, all these negative responses have almost convinced me that I'm physically abnormal. I just don't get much from the sex act until the climax.
195: Sorry.
On the plus side, I now know when and when not to generalize from my own experience.
I just don't get much from the sex act until the climax.
Really? Maybe you're not doing it right. Seriously.
Oh well, I don't want to fix what's not broken. My life in general is going pretty well.
On the panty/undearwear question...no love for "unmentionables"?
and193: hott!
Unless I am looking in entirely the wrong chapter, Burke's Manual of Etiquette and Protocol is completely silent on both these crucial questions. I swear to god that fucking book is completely useless.
"I'd said when we went back to his place that I either had to leave that night or early the next morning"
That's often code for 'I do not want to stay the night'. I don't think the guy is necessarily a prick for not leaping to pay for cab fare. I'm not even sure it's something that I think he *ought* to have done -- being able to find their own way home being something that adults are generally expected to be able to do. And walking you to the underground station suggests he's not a total dick re: the taxi.
However, the not-caring-about-the-orgasm thing = teh shitty.
194: So the earlier line of 'Ho hum, ho hum, ho hum, HOLY SHIT!' (which cracked me up laughing) actually applies in your case?
wow. given the tenor of this conversation, i'd like to point out that lots of women won't come the first time because they're getting used to you.
this would be true of me. but once comfortable, some of us are disappointed if they don't come twice fairly regularly - not every time, but pretty often. and three times is not unknown, though not expected, and much appreciated. so no more of this "women generally don't come" stuff.
(yes, obviously, the process of getting close can be great even if orgasm doesn't happen...sometimes that is what you are in the mood for instead anyway...)
(and finally, along with silvana, i have also totally come and then rolled over and fallen asleep w/o reciprocation...but that's what happens when you wake a person up in the middle of the night, bah humbug. :) )
Way back in 78: Or, you know, most cities have a fucking coffee shop like a block away
There actually is a coffee shop two blocks away from my house in Weinerville, because I decided to live in the neighborhood that has stores you can walk to, but I bet in most of Lubbock you'd have to drive to get coffee. Which under the circumstances you should. Welcome to suburbia.
re: 204
Oh yes, and there are those who have orgasm taxonomies and get decidely grumpy if they have a mere 2 or 3 orgasms and none of them are full on 'Krakatoa' ones.
205: Yeah, I made the same choice when I moved to east nowhere.
Speaking of coffee, mine's worn off. I'ma go to sleep now.
76: Darling, you look simply ravishing tonight.
Are all women happy when their sex partners arouse them but don't bring them to orgasm?
Maybe men and women are wired differently, but to me, this is like saying "I won't go to the three-star restaurant at all unless I can be guaranteed dessert." It's better if you can get dessert, of course, if there's no dessert, it's still worthwhile.
In any case, it's better to be aroused and eventually less than satisfied than not aroused at all. Um, that sorta hurts. ('But at least there's no failure! Ow.')
I can certainly think of one friend of my acquaintance who claims never to have had an orgasm. She likes sex, has had lots of experience, has no hang-ups, and is adamant that her sex life is generally pretty good.
The fact that some people can certainly enjoy sex without orgasm, some or even all of the time is not the same thing as being capable of having an orgasm but having a partner who is too lazy to bother, though.
oh come now, you're exaggerating everything out of context.
i just think it's funny when the default/implicit assumption is "women tend not to get orgasms."
and to 210: there are probably lots of women who have never had orgasms. usually they are youngish. because it takes a while to figure out what turns you on and how to turn yourself on when you're a women...it can take a couple of years. i'm sure she enjoys it - those states are enjoyable too. but, give your friend time!
above was re: 206
and (ahem!) there's nothing wrong with krakatoan fun anyway.
i believe everybody involved enjoys that.
Re: 211
The person described in 210 is in her mid-30s and been having sex for the best part of 20 years -- so not really that youngish or inexperienced. She claims to enjoy it a great deal, just not to have actual orgasms.
To come in way, way late: first, the guy sounds awful. I'm having a hard time even visualizing sex that didn't incorporate some effort toward facilitating an orgasm for you -- what was he doing, asking you to lie still and think of England? (Not an actual request for information. I am reminded of a story I heard ages ago of a friend of a friend dating a guy who appeared to have a necrophilia thing -- he'd ask her to take a cold bath first and lie very still.)
On the cab thing, I'd call the offense the lack of an invitation to spend the night (which strikes me as pretty severe. I don't care if it's inconvenient, if you have sex with someone they should be sleeping over). Not paying for the cab? Eh, you didn't ask. If you can't afford the cab and you have safety or comfort issues about the train, you either ask to stay over because you can't afford a cab and don't want to be on the subway at night, or ask to borrow cab fare. You're never entitled to be pissed off at someone because they didn't give you stuff.
Not giving you orgasms, or at least making a solid effort in that direction? That you can be pissed off about.
And on the "you have no idea how sexy you are" thing: It can come off like Cala said as a pleasant compliment, something along the lines of "If you realized how devastating you were, you'd be incredibly vain and you aren't. You must just not know the effect you have." (This isn't exactly it, but something like that.)
It can also come off as "Heh, heh. Let me awaken you, my naive and innocent little flower." WHich is gross.
213: hm, that sounds too bad for her.
you know, pleasant things are great, but occasionally having really intense experiences is something i wouldn't want missing from my life.
also, i will just point out in 206: when the quantity of orgasms increases, the quality also increases/changes. so that last phrase in 206 isn't really applicable.
That's often code for 'I do not want to stay the night'.
Whether or not that's true, there's no sane reason not to ask, just in case you've misunderstood their meaning, or their mind has changed now that their snuggled into bed. It any case, it's irrelevant; I know that's not what he understood me to mean. Further, the very statement "Let's put you into a cab," if it doesn't mean, "I'm giving you cab fare," is rude and presumptuous--at the very least it should be, "How are you going to get home?" because he should not be assuming I have the money to pay a large cab fare. And finally, there are lots of things that adults can do, but in certain situations should not be obligated to do. I should not have been obligated to go home on the train.
Not paying for the cab? Eh, you didn't ask.
To me "Let's put you in a cab" sounds like an offer, in part because of the tradition mentioned above of paying someone's cab fare. This might be a little skewed by never living anywhere you can hail a cab on the street.
But I agree that he should have offered to let Tia stay over. How hard can it be to get back to sleep?
In re finding your way home as something adults are expected to do, I've occasionally had to take a long subway ride in New York late at night (not for this reason), and it can be a real pain in the ass. I expect it's much more convenient and pleasant in the morning.
well, some ppl find falling asleep in the same bed more intimate than having sex.
but that said, i agree, there is no turning people out into the night at very late hours. i hope that's the last you see of him, at least in this context.
He just sounds selfish. The cab fare thing might be excusable; if his normal social circle is full of people who normally have the cash for it. But the whole 'tomorrow is my day to sleep in' plus the lack of interest in Tia's orgasm just means that he doesn't seem to have any interest beyond himself. Sex, check. Ability to sleep in tomorrow, check.
Bleh.
Further, the very statement "Let's put you into a cab," if it doesn't mean, "I'm giving you cab fare," is rude and presumptuous--at the very least it should be, "How are you going to get home?" because he should not be assuming I have the money to pay a large cab fare.
No, you were being presumptuous in assuming that he was going to give you money. If you weren't presuming, you would have said "Oh, I can't afford a cab home from here," and followed with your choice of (a) "I'm going to take the train"; (b) "I'm not comfortable taking the train, mind if I stay? I'll try not to wake you up when I leave in the morning," or (c) "Can I borrow $40 for the cab?" (I admit that I'd expect any of those to elicit an apologetic either "Please stay," or "Oh, heavens no, I'll pay for the cab.")
But he's really not responsible for knowing that you can't get yourself home under your own power in a way that makes you happy if you don't ask him for help.
sex that didn't incorporate some effort toward facilitating an orgasm for you
While he had an erection, he did things that were designed to arouse me. When he did not, he rolled over and snoozed basically.
You're never entitled to be pissed off at someone because they didn't give you stuff.
This is just wrong. The world is full of situations in which there are conventions and implicatures and understandings that construct obligations, in which you aren't supposed to have to state certain things explicitly. If you are polite and don't ask for something that isn't freely offered, it doesn't mean that you can't be pissed because it should have been. After all, I didn't ask for an orgasm either, so why is it his fault he didn't offer to try? To recapitulate a previous discussion, if he had invited me to a fancy restaurant I couldn't pay for, then made no move to take care of the bill when it came, and I had politely paid my half of the check, I would have been totally justified in being pissed. Whether or not you personally would prefer things to be more direct, that's not the way a lot of the world works, and socially intelligent people are supposed to understand what they should do to make another person feel comfortable without the other person having to request everything. It's being a good host.
The world is full of situations in which there are conventions and implicatures and understandings that construct obligations, in which you aren't supposed to have to state certain things explicitly. If you are polite and don't ask for something that isn't freely offered, it doesn't mean that you can't be pissed because it should have been.
The problem is that your sense of the conventions and implicatures is not universal -- it's local to your social group. If you have expectations of this sort, you're going to spend a large part of your life unreasonably pissed off at people because their sense of conventions and implicatures was formed outside of your social circle. Expecting people to know what you want when you don't say it limits your capacity to successfully interact with people to your own social group.
Q: What would you like me to do while you masturbate?
A: Put your ______ in my ________.
cabfare; moist panties.
I wouldn't want "my own social group" at least as regards intimacy, to be broader than those who know this without being told.
"Sexy" is a great word, but should be served with a side of profanity ("You are so fucking sexy").
Then there's the eternal "pussy" v. "cunt" question. I prefer "cunt".
This is so wrong. "Pussy" is beautiful and naughty.
And no condoms does not result in a kid. It results in no sex.
!!!
In my world, it just results in no penetration. There's a whole cornucopia of delights.
"Panties" is terrible.
You may also have kids with Joe D.
It would all come crashing down when I whisper that she has a sexy pussy.
Tia, don't get discouraged! This is New York! You'll never find a dating pool of more sexually enlightened men! And I'm not just speaking of myself here!
Our social groups are easily similar enough that he had plenty of information to be able to project himself into my situation and think about what would make me feel comfortable. He is not some alien creature who doesn't have the experience to understand that I might like to stay in one bed for the night, and that it would be polite to offer. Nor is the concept that it's hard to get home at night from one borough to another in New York City on the train foreign to him; I'm quite sure. The fact that he didn't make an effort to ideally, invite me to stay, or second best, make sure I went home in a cab, speaks poorly for his consideration.
I have considered this matter carefully and I now think that in the circumstances, you should send him an invoice for $40, with a small note included making it clear that the invoice is not for the cab.
He is not some alien creature who doesn't have the experience to understand that I might like to stay in one bed for the night, and that it would be polite to offer.
On this I couldn't agree more.
It seems to me that a lot of arguments between feminists, here and elsewhere, break down at the same point: some people are arguing about what should happen in an ideal world, others what should happen in this less than ideal one.
I think it's a bit disingenous to say, as Tia does, that it's a gender-neutral situation, that a woman would give a guy cab fare if pushing him out in the middle of the night. I have trouble imagining this happening. You can have gender-neutral consideration for the person, as b suggests, for instance walking someone to an ATM. But cab fare has an extra layer of the gentlemanly; it just does. This does not, however, make it totally incompatible with contemporary mores, because there is still some income inequality between men and women generally--residual expectations carrying along with that--and there is some extra concern for a woman traveling in the middle of the night. It seems the way to correct this is by addressing income inequality and safety issues as much as possible, at a general level, rather than punishing the individual woman going home in the middle of the night for whom cab fare is a hardship.
You'll never find a dating pool of more sexually enlightened men!
Except, of course, at the Mineshaft. (Tia, remind me, who am I trying to fix you up with again?)
Possibly, as dsquared suggests well above, there are no real rules covering these situations. Or there are different sets of rules for different types of relationships, and the set that is acceptable to you defines the type of relationship you want. I'm surprised that he didn't invite Tia to stay (I'm a little surprised that the norm isn't at least a little food in the morning), but there are lots of different types of relationships, and I'm willing to believe that there are some in which you're allowed to kick the other person out after finishing off.
Same sort of thing with the cab. I think I'd be offended by the idea that I was obliged to provide cab fare by some set of pseudo-Victorian rules. OTOH, I generally believe that people often ought to pay equivalent costs, as measured by the marginal utility of the relevant amounts of cash; if you've got significantly more cash, and unless you're feeling worked, you should pick up more of the checks, whether sex is involved or not.
I was clearly stuck working overtime in the shark tank and missed the previous subtext that allowed for 200 comments without mentioning this:
"As I was saying, Graham declared that we could not see each other for four weeks after we wound up seeing each other twice in a weekend."
Because, that seems wrong in and of itself.
Having said that, "you have no idea how..." is really a way of expressing the pleasure one is drawing. It starts with the assumption that we can never really know what is going on in other people. And it isn't only men who say this sort of thing. Although perhaps it was only said to me because I'm particularly bound by the hermeneutic circle and hence completely clueless.
As for taxis and coffee, some people are genuinely clueless and carelss. But some get off on seeing how far they can take someone for granted when a good thing comes their way. In which case there is an implicit cruelty. I don't want to tell you to run away or anything, but it is a theory that fits the facts.
I agree that social conventions make it more likely that a woman would expect cab fare than the other way around; however, if I had woman whose income way outstripped my date's, I would offer. The one time I have been in anything like this situation was in college, when I had some money and my boyfriend had literally none. I bought us groceries, sometimes paid for restaurant meals, etc.
As I was saying, Graham declared that we could not see each other for four weeks after we wound up seeing each other twice in a weekend.
I agree heartily that on the face of it, in the absence of fairly heavy extenuating circumstances, this does carry rather an impression of having something of the twat about it.
Because, that seems wrong in and of itself.
?
I see what you mean about restaurants and stuff--but it still seems to that cab fare has a particularly gendered association, because money meets safety concerns there.
If I were a woman...
diddle diddle diddle diddle dum dee dum dee dee
All day long I'd fiddle with my ...
What are you talking about? We nominally broke up in February. He's trying to enforce a separation that neither of us have been able to maintain.
I figured it meant that he's trying desperately to get over her. Which is hard, since it's Tia.
Backgrounder on the breakup, in case anyone hasn't seen it.
I'm just saying that whatever the larger social situation, I'm not expecting something because he's a man and I'm a woman, since I, personally, would do the same thing were the circumstances reversed, whatever other women would be likely to do, or other men would be likely to accept.
whatever other women would be likely to do, or other men would be likely to accept.
Well, there goes the "social conventions" explanation, right?
243 - I'd missed exactly what Matt posted in 245. It makes perfect sense now. Without knowing that, it seemed a little bit like an odd structure to the relationship. (Although, Madre de Dios, a lot less odd than 214). But now it all makes sense.
Except the no sleeping over/ no cab part.
The no-cab guy isn't Graham, the ex. Two different men.
247: What he did was wrong because he failed to consider my situation individually. The "conventions" part was that I should not have to say, "Can I please sleep over?" because it should be offered, and if it's not, for some reason, the host should make a big effort to make sure their date gets home safe.
We need a pseudonym for no-cab guy.
On cliched compliments, does anyone find the phrase "your skin is so soft," annoying?
I may be being unreasonable on this one, but it always reminds me of a particular date. I remember hooking up (no sex) with a guy that I hadn't seen in a long time and knew kind of casually from college. We went to a
party first, and I think that he might have been sort of showing me off to some friends. (I'm not gorgeous or anything, but I'm reaasonably cute/pretty/attractive, and he wasn't exactly hott, all of which is just a roundabout way of saying that, under the circumstances, I could have been a trophy date.. He wasn't really my type; he was very smart but also insecure. I was fairly "easy to talk to"about some personal stuff. The hooking up only really happened, because I was pretty drunk. The whole thing from the pre-date coffee date on felt as though he'd read some book on how to get girls and was following its prescriptions. "Your skin is so soft" sounded like it was one of the compliment options provided forthose with asperger's who needed rigid rules to follow. Maybe it's an acceptable option, but I find it a bit creepy.
249 -- (If directed to 248) I knew that. It was the broader narrative history -- and apparently pronouns -- that I was struggling with.
I'm leaning with LizardBreath here, but with an extra-nihilistic twist!
At least in my experience, the implicit contract in a hookup is that each will be responsible for his or her pleasure, vulnerability, and involvement; you don't get to be an asshole, but you also don't presume, unasked, that the other person needs anything from you. If the sex sucked, as it were, then there won't be a follow-up hookup. But it's not a date; it's about getting into bed, and everything else is up to the individual to work out.
Maybe it's because I've experienced hookups this way that I'm not more adventurous.
If you spell 'no-cab" backwards, you get Bacon. I think that works.
And the problem with requiring consideration of your situation individually is that there is also a convention that it is rude to inquire into the financial affairs of those one socializes with but does not know well. In the absence of your saying something direct, he doesn't know if you can or can't afford a cab, if you'd be offended by an offer of money (some people would be), or if you take the subway as a matter of environmental principle (I have known people in this category.) If you aren't direct, you're requiring mindreading.
We need a pseudonym for no-cab guy.
Hitler.
Maybe it's because I've experienced hookups this way that I'm not more adventurous.
I think fucking an Iranian qualifies as "adventurous enough." (Can ogged still be goaded?)
I'm with LizardBreath's take in 214 and 222 on this.
You're goading me just fine, SCMTim.
If you spell 'no-cab" backwards, you get Bacon
No, no, we'll not be defaming bacon by way of association. Roger, on the other hand, alludes to bacon and to the _______ of Tia's ______. And given that the post is primarily about manners, Sir Roger?
The no-cab thing seems forgivable, but really, telling someone to go home after having sex with them is pretty damn caddish.
261: This, absolutely. Roger sounds like an absolute twerp, and one to be gossiped rudely about under his real name.
261 also gets it right.
Chucking someone out in the middle of the night because you want to sleep late is pretty fucking shitty. Not giving a shit about their orgasm also = pretty fucking shitty.
But not coughing up the dollars for taxi fare does not.
Not giving a shit about their orgasm also = pretty fucking shitty.
Oh for crying out loud you PC types can we stop pretending that women have orgasms? You'll be claiming that they can parallel park next.
No, no, we'll not be defaming bacon by way of association.
How 'bout Shaksper?
Well, one issue in this conversation is that I have more background into the nature and structure of our relationship as constructed through the last encounter and this one and various emails than you all do, and I don't feel like going into it all. Although I disagree that this info should be necessary to conclude that he acted wrongly, I can tell you he knew I would not be offended by an offer of money, he certainly knew I wasn't refusing the cab for environmental reasons since I was just fine with the idea until he said "Do you need an ATM?" If you want to make an offer of something and you're worried it might offend, you can construct it politely, so you admit the possibility that they might not want it. It is much easier to construct a polite offer than it is to politely say, "Can I stay the night?" after someone has already told you they'd prefer you didn't, or "I don't have money for cab; will you give it to me?"
261 sums it up. Not offering a bed for the night plumbs new depths of rudeness. Apart from the total lack of consideration for the other person's welfare, it implies that the sex has been so mediocre you'd go to any length to avoid having to do it again in the morning. If you value your beauty sleep so much more than your partner, you shouldn't hook up in the first place.
This thread ought to turn the hive mind to thinking up killer lines for use in case this prat has the temerity to try to get in touch again.
The other day, for the first time I parallel parked using one smooth motion. How gratifying!
So y'all understand that the cab fare thing is contingent on me being chucked out, right? And in fact, I'm taking a more generous construal of his actions by saying he had a couple of decent options, but one or the other should have been offered?
"Bacon" might be a good nickname, because of the bringing home issues.
"I can take the train" is really the tipping point, I think. It's 3am, you've kicked your booty call out, and she's going to end up taking the subway to Brooklyn home. I think everything up to this point is somewhat forgivable, but at this point you have to re-assess and insist on paying for a cab, or bring Tia back home and tell her she may just have to let herself out in the morning. I mean, really.
one of the compliment options provided forthose with asperger's who needed rigid rules to follow
So that's why he kept saying that.
Actually, I think this is an ok compliment, if true. And it tends to be, I think, not just with women but humans in general. Skin is nice.
"Parallel parking" is an excellent euphemism for coitus.
"Your skin is so soft"
Unlike sand, which is rough.
Since I don't live in a city where cabs are used as a primary mode of transportation, I can't really weigh in intelligently, but when has that ever stopped me! "Let's put you in a cab" really sounds like it ought to be accompanied by cab fare.
And yes, kicking Tia out combined with the sexual selfishness combine to make Sir Roger Shakesper-Hitler-Bacon a cad.
The main focus and locus of discussion seems to be the man's inappropriate behavior in not paying for the cab. I don't think the inappropriateness is particularly related to it being a sexual situation, or to a relation between men and women. It's the simple combination of these facts:
A) Person A insists that Person B leave, in order to slightly increase Person A's comfort
B) It will be significantly expensive and/or significantly uncomfortable for Person B to leave at this time
C) Person A makes no effort to relieve Person B of the expense/discomfort, despite the fact that Person B left not on his own volition but on the request of Person A.
This alone is unacceptable. Combined with the exacerbating factors:
D) Person A is much more able to pay for Person B's transport than Person B is, but does not offer to.
E) Person A made no effort to please Person B during their encounter, making Person B annoyed even before the whole "you have to leave now" thing.
203: It applies when a condom is involved.
Re 270. Yes, by all means. I think his behavious is so bad that I raise the possibility that he is at some level playing an ugly little power game.
As for me. I like to cuddle and don't understand why anyone wouldn't.
Yeah, part of what's making me all stiffnecked about the cab fare not being the offense is that I don't see that having offered the cab fare would make Roger any less of an ass. Implying that paying for the cab would have made the evening an acceptable encounter seems to let him off the hook too easily.
And the final sentence of 267 is, I think, an excellent idea.
"but both times I've seen him, including the first time we met, we've spent about ten minutes staring at each other over drinks scarcely able to speak for the mutual knowledge that we're going to go have sex, until finally we start talking about sex, and then we give up the pretense that we want to wait any longer and go back to his apartment."
You mean your diligent, careful investigation of his personality failed to turn up the possibility that he might have a few jerk-like shortcomings? Amazing. Nothing wrong with the quick hookup but when you do you have no room to complain that he didn't turn out to be a swell guy.
Sir Roger Shakesper-Hitler-Bacon
mrh wins.
Nothing wrong with the quick hookup but when you do you have no room to complain that he didn't turn out to be a swell guy.
Um, of course you do. I don't even know what this means.
Yeah, you hear that, Tia? No room to complain!
I'm surprised that 281 hasn't been mentioned yet. It makes a good point.
He's a jerk...but were you really surprised to find out that he's a jerk?
277 gets it right, I think. Once Bacon says "You should leave afterwards, not in the morning" he's put Tia in a situation where she has to take a cab or brave Bizarro subways where half the trains aren't running and the ones that are don't come. (Like Tia.) Since it was his choice to put her in that situation, he should be responsible for getting her out of it by paying her cab fare.
Like, if he'd insisted on driving out to his country mansion and then wanted to stay for the weekend, he should pay for her train fare back into the city.
Nothing wrong with the quick hookup but when you do you have no room to complain that he didn't turn out to be a swell guy.
Well, actually, yeah, she does. I believe we are justified in complaining when people behave inconsiderately, regardless of our relationship or knowledge of their personality.
driving out to his country mansion
Can this be the new euphemism for selfish sexual behavior?
He's a jerk...but were you really surprised to find out that he's a jerk?
What kind of question is this? If she thought he was going to kick her out into the night and not offer to pay cab fare, I think that might have factored in, no?
288 is awesome (and 287 is exactly right; if we can't complain about people being jerks just because we know they will, what will we have to say about G.W. Bush?)
285: What, what? No it doesn't. 281 emphatically does not make a good point.
First of all, if we can't complain when someone is a jerk to us, when, pray tell, can we complain?
Do things "factor in" to an irrational animal attraction?
He's a jerk...but were you really surprised to find out that he's a jerk?
Because he wants to have non-relationship sex? Dude, if you say that women should assume that any man who wants to have non-relationship sex is going to be an asshole, then you are discouraging all women from having non-relationship sex. Is this an effect you're going for on purpose? Because it borders on slut-shaming.
Yeah, what LB said. Stop ruining it for the rest of us!
293 gets it exactly right.
And the answer to 292 is "yes."
Like, if he'd insisted on driving out to his country mansion and then wanted to stay for the weekend, he should pay for her train fare back into the city.
What, like compelled her with his strange, Dracula-like, powers of mesmerization?
I took #281 to mean not that you can't complain, but that different people have different social expectations, and it's not surprising when someone else that you don't know well has a different set of social expectations than you. That doesn't seem like a particularly controversial point. But of course you can complain; you're allowed to complain about the thread count of his sheets, if you want.
No, Tim, if he'd brought her someplace inconvenient to get back from, and then changed the plan and stranded her there. Then, I'd be all over expecting him to get involved in her means of getting home.
Still shuddering at 229.
I'm surprised that so many women here are annoyed by particular compliments. Unless they're over-the-top insincere, I'll take any and all compliments. "You have no idea...", "your skin is so soft...", etc. I like them all, except the one in 229.
Bacon's offenses, in order of egregiousness, are as follows:
1. Kicking Tia out into the night.
2. Not caring whether she orgasms.
3. Not giving her cab fare.
293: What?
It has nothing to do with wanting non-relationship sex. It has to do with knowing very little about the person. You can't really be surprised by anything the person does if you don't know hardly anything about them.
Of course, I disagree with 281's conclusion that Tia has no right to complain. You can complain about anything that's unacceptable. But how much did he betray her trust? How much trust should have existed?
If an s.o. did this, it would lead me to do some soul-searching and think "what did I see in this person? I've wasted so much effort on this relationship!" But as a random hookup, it would just lead me to say "oops, I misjudged that jerk." Not as big of a deal emotionally.
I've still got a bone to pick with 292. I hate the notion that people are just "carried away" by lust or whatever the fuck and are no longer using their reason. That is just not true. You may want it to be true, but when you allow that lust can take over your capacity to reason, that's a short leap from saying that people are just overcome by "animal attraction" when they rape, or when they cheat on their significant others, or when they molest children.
When you have sex, unless you have a mental deficiency that inhibits your reasoning and decision-making capabilities, it is a choice that you make. Period.
No, women shouldn't assume that any man who wants to have non-relationship sex is going to be an asshole. The point is, if you don't know someone you can't assume anything. If I handed my car keys to a complete stranger and told him to look after it while I was gone and it got stolen every would call me an idiot. I see above that Tia mentions email exchanged so perhaps there was more personal interaction than initially implied. That highlights that we have only been told a highly filtered version of one person's point of view. I admit, it is always more fun to be righteously indignant (especially on behalf of someone we know) than shrug our shoulders and admit we don't know enough to say one way or the other.
I think that 281 and 285 are only logical if we could say "its just teh sex."
I don't think its ever "just." Its a very big and important deal and often fraught with all manner of issues concerning self regard and identity. If handled properly it is awesome even when casual. But how we treat eachother while we're doing it matters.
Yes, if Tia'd given him a questionaire to fill out, she might have known this was coming. But there is still no excuse for it. And blogs were born of complaint.
297: then changed the plan
That's the key: what are the implicit assumptions about the plan? I think we're all roughly agreed that Tia should have been invited to stay, and I agree that if he changes that expectation, he ought to at least offer to cover the fare home. I just don't know how reasonable the assumption that she should have been invited to stay is; I think it's bizarre not to make the offer--I can't imagine that the question would even come up, to be honest--but I have no sense of what the norm is.
It's not a big deal emotionally. I'm irritated, not hurt.
If I handed my car keys to a complete stranger and told him to look after it while I was gone and it got stolen every would call me an idiot
AAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHH
297- Isn't that what he did do? I'd be conscious of dragging someone to my house on the Upper West Side if she lived in Brooklyn.
299: I read your comment 285 as fully endorsing 281 (the "It makes a good point" was what I was relying on.) 281 said that she had "no room to complain". That's getting close to slut-shaming: it sounds awfully like 'Sleep around like that, and of course people are going to treat you badly. You shouldn't expect differently and you have no room to complain if you do.'
Given that you don't agree with 281 to that extent, sure: this is annoying, and Roger's a jerk, but it's not a betrayal of trust or anything more than an unpleasant evening.
And I admit that "no room to complain" was poorly chosen. We can (and should) complain when we encounter behaviour we don't approve of (though preferably to the person who trespassed). I would like to amend me statement to something more like Cryptic Ned's "you can't really be surprised..."
I think the kicker for me was the "do you need to go to an ATM?". I think the civilized thing to do is to say "Do you have enough cash on you for the cab?"
If they say no you can then offer them some (which leaves open the possibility that they'll pay you back later), and if they feel uncomfortable with this they can ask "Is there an ATM close by?" If you don't have any cash on hand to offer them, you can say "Let's get to an ATM and get you some cash", which leaves open the possibility of them withdrawing cash themselves, if they feel offended or uncomfortable or whatever by the offer.
This is something I would do for any guest I had to turn out into the night in NYC, male or female, whether a date or hook-up or friend or whatever. It's the gracious thing to do.
Of course this whole discussion is somewhat NYC specific. In Lubbock I'd most likely have a car and offer to drive them home.
Where is the thread where a sometime commenter whose appelation I've forgotten discusses how much she enjoys having her arousal built up for very long periods of time and not climaxing? I've wasted far too much time trying to find it.
Like, if he'd insisted on driving out to his country mansion and then wanted to stay for the weekend, he should pay for her train fare back into the city
Or if they'd tripped to the top of Mount Snowdon, he should have paid for the narrow-gauge railway back down to Blaenau Ffestiniog.
298: I'll take any and all compliments.
You must be an angel, because you are invited to my pants.
"AAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHH"
I appreciate your constructive reply.
Whoa, DA, you have some fantastic photos on your blog.
AAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHH
I know, it just gets worse and worse, but I can't stop reading.
I think the civilized thing to do is to say "Do you have enough cash on you for the cab?"
When you put it like this, yes.
Where is the thread where a sometime commenter whose appelation I've forgotten discusses how much she enjoys having her arousal built up for very long periods of time and not climaxing?
Here. (Found with Yahoo. Google sucks.)
311: Would that be a funicular railway?
In Lubbock I'd most likely have a car and offer to drive them home.
In Lubbock she could just sleep under the big sky and the stars in the warm weather; the point does not arise.
jp6v is right; if when saying goodbye to her at the subway this guy had leaned in close and then bitten off her ear, would Tia have had any right to be surprised?
Unless they're over-the-top insincere, I'll take any and all compliments
You don't sweat much for a fat girl.
Alright jp6v, I'll bite.
Your "stolen car" example is one that I've heard a bazillion times. And you know where? In the ever-pervasive rape apologist discussions.
I'm not calling you a rape apologist, but here's how that argument goes, if you're unfamiliar with it. It provides that women should "expect" that if they behave a certain way (e.g., walking around in revealing clothing, alone late at night, getting wasted at a party), they will get raped. In that discussion, a car analogy is frequently made, saying "If I leave my car unlocked in a dangerous neighborhood, and it gets stolen, that's my fault!"
A woman is not a car. Relationship are not vehicles.
It doesn't matter what kind of precautions you take or investigations you make. People who behave inconsiderately are assholes.
Well, what I think is, the next time Tia goes on a date she should live-blog it, not just for our entertainment, but in order to get perspicacious advice from the Unfoggedtariat.
I also think this should happen at some time when it is convenient for my timezone to join in, like 5am NY time.
314: Thanks, Joe.
Dsquared and Weiner: Okay okay, not any and all.
Or if they'd tripped to the top of Mount Snowdon, he should have paid for the narrow-gauge railway back down to Blaenau Ffestiniog.
And dsquared, after you've seduced this unsuspecting American on top of Mount Snowdon, and abandoned her there like Ariadne on Naxos at 3:00 in the morning, when exactly can she expect the next train?
Good point. Also it goes to Llanberis, not Blaenau Ffestiniog.
"Or if they'd tripped to the top of Mount Snowdon, he should have paid for the narrow-gauge railway back down to Blaenau Ffestiniog."
Particularly if she's a steam enthusiast, who knows the whole history of the Garratts in South Africa, and closely follows attempts at modernization through improved exhaust flow.
In Lubbock she could just sleep under the big sky and the stars in the warm weather; the point does not arise.
This is not fucking true.
Thank you for a fuller response silvana. You are, of course, entirely correct that a woman is not a car and relationships are not vehicles. I was trying to offer an example where assumptions of other people's behaviour can cause trouble for one's self. Obviously, many felt it was a poor example and I admit that in different situations we have different expectations for other people's behaviour.
Barbar: someone's ear being bitten off is a rather unusual occurrence unless one is boxing with Mike Tyson. Having a guy act like a dick at the end of a one night stand is a far more common occurrence.
between him, me and FL losing his cock in the taxi door incident
Perhaps Roger had the sense not to go anywhere near the cab, given how things had gone up to then.
SB, you sure are right in 316 about the suckage of google site search. Google also failed to find the following exchange, which I wanted to link in reference to I'll take any and all compliments. Yahoo had it as the first hit. Exchange is SB, me, chopper.
And to add onto 320: I call bullshit. Basic human decency is something we presume all the time. In a coffee shop: "Mind watching my purse while I run to the ladies' room?" "Can you keep an eye on this?" (Or yesterday, at my local coffee shop: "Can you keep an eye on my laptop?" says the woman next to me. "She doesn't need to. Nobody would steal from here." says the middle-eastern owner, mafia-style. ) If we meet someone for a drink, we presume they're not asking the bartender to spike it with date-rape drugs. Even if it's a blind date!
I don't know NYC dating norms, but assuming that paying for cab fare/spending the night falls into the 'basic date protocol' category, that's something you get to assume given normal interaction.
Having a guy act like a dick at the end of a one night stand is a far more common occurrence.
Really? Why?
I don't know NYC dating norms, but assuming that paying for cab fare/spending the night falls into the 'basic date protocol' category,
That's the big question, and it relates to LB's point in 224: it's not just NYC dating norms, but specific subgroup norms. Tia is almost certainly right for her social group, and she definitely has a better fix on how Roger sits in relation to that social group. But I don't know that the cab fare thing is self-evident for all situations; I'm not sure what is beyond the most obvious stuff (no raping, not biting off of ears, generally, no harm). Which makes him a dick, from Tia's perspective, and she's right to complain. I'm not sure it makes him some sort of moral monster who's actions cannot be predicted in any fashion. Rapists pretty much fall into "moral monster" category for me, as I assume they do for everyone else. It seems uncharitable to read the earlier points as similar to "she asked for it."
it's not just NYC dating norms, but specific subgroup norms
my eye. I can't think of anywhere where it's OK to have sex with someone and not let them stay the night.
331: Really? Why?
My only guess is that quality control isn't as good on one-nighters (which I know is true for me, at least). If you don't know the person as well, you're more likely to end up with one of the many jerks out there.
333: Not letting them spend the night has got to be pretty universally lousy. Pre-emptively paying for a cab isn't that sort of broad norm, I don't think.
my eye. I can't think of anywhere where it's OK to have sex with someone and not let them stay the night.
Yer wife never lets me stay.
(I agree entirely, but I'm not sure that's a uniformly accepted norm. Something--I don't know what--in the past 300+ comments made me think that it wasn't.)
101: So I take it that "fuzzy axe wound" is also a no-go?
The thing is, he doesn't have to pre-emptively pay for the cab; he just has to eventually realize she's getting on the subway late at night and think there's something wrong with that.
I imagine people on one-night stands experience internal pressure to not be that "nice," but this is basic courtesy, not romantic chivalry or whatever.
338: comprehensive research carried out over a lifetime of vulgarity, reveals that the single least acceptable slang term for the female genitalia in the eyes of women is "growler". I don't know why, don't ask me, etc. It is like the affectionate term "bird", which packs a punch of irritation out of all proportion to its (non-existent) obscenity.
Well, my 224 was claiming that conventions were generally variable by social group, which in retrospect is overstated. I should have said that any convention that assumes that one party to a hookup pays the other party's transportation costs home is variable by social group -- I wouldn't expect it as a norm.
Interest in your sex partner's satisfaction? Offering hospitality for the night to anyone you've invited home for sex? Those are, even if still social conventions, broad enough that I wouldn't want to have sex with anyone who didn't think of them as norms.
341 to 337.
And 'growler'? That one hasn't made it across the Atlantic at all, or at least I've never heard of it.
Perhaps a good nickname for this guy would be "Social Norm".
340 -- Never heard "growler". But "hole" is similarly non-obscene and unpopular.
(I've always preferred "business".)
'Growler'? WTF? Where'd that come from?
(Killer name for a todger though).
Yeah, "growler" is totally new to me, too. My UK friends seem to prefer "chuff" to refer to that bit of anatomy.
Which struck me as weird, because then there's the non-vulgar "I'm chuffed" to mean "I'm pleased."
#346: do try to keep up 007. The word "growler" refers to the snapper, not the todger.
As far as NYC dating norms go, I'm not really your best guide, but while I'd be I think justifiably angry at being booted out in the middle of the night, and while I'd resent either paying for a cab or taking a long subway ride, I wouldn't have expected Mr. Roger-Hitler-Bacon to have paid my cabfare. I'd have resented him for the whole damned evening, including its expenses, but I would probably write the individual elements of it off as "well, that was shitty."
Which is what I think Tia should say if My. Roger-Hitler-Bacon contacts her for another go: "No, I didn't really have any fun with you; in fact, it was pretty shitty for me."
The phrasing I was thinking of was more along the lines of "Really, if I'm going to have sex with someone, I expect to either get off or get a decent night's sleep. Preferably both."
Well, I did enjoy the sex, and he knows it, so I'm not going to say anything that implies I didn't.
I misunderstood that part of the post, then.
I was more concerned with the gesture of being concerned about whether I came than about an actual orgasm. Like I said, it's the principle.
Okay, so strike the part about not having any fun, but you did come away from the evening feeling as though he'd treated you shittily, right?
352: Well, then maybe you can invite him back to your place in the future (if you're willing to give it another try)? Give him the inconvenience instead?
I know a couple of my girl friends here in town will always take a guy home instead of going to his place, since that way the girl gets the good night's sleep while the guy calls for a cab or hits the red line at 3 am.
Heh heh. I'm sure my four roomates would appreciate his presence through the very thin walls. And he would love my single bed.
Hmm. Back to a much earlier comment, it seems really silly that there's a problem with "should I try to pleasure her even though she's never had an orgasm?" I mean, just fucking ask the woman. "Do you want me to ______?" or "Would you like (me) to ______?" If you don't have the basic decency to make sure your partner is being satisfied (especially after a couple encounters), then you are really an asshole, and no excuses.
On the other hand, if your parter asks you and you feel too uncomfortable talking about sex to answer them, then you have no room to complain about not being satisfied. Ideally you should get over it and just talk about it, but at most you can say "we're not compatible sexually".
On some other hand, the best solution is to tell your partner what you want them to do when you don't like what they're doing. If you have sex three times without getting as much attention as you'd like, and you haven't even mentioned it to your partner, then you really should. > 3, and I'd have a hard time blaming them. Sure, ideally, they'd be paying more attention, and they'd ask *you* if you were being satisfied. They'd notice that you weren't smiling afterwards, or something. But if you never say anything about it, then geez, take some responsibility. If your partner has some annoying mannerism (not sex-related, even), and you're really bugged by it, but never say anything, then who's really to blame here? (In the sex case, the partner has more of the blame, because they should be more attentive, but not the majority.)
Oh, and I'm not saying this has anything to do with Tia's encounter.
358: Ahhh... admittedly the couple girls I'm thinking of are generally the ringleaders of their apartments, so the other roommates just have to suck it up and deal. Maybe they'd be ok with it on nights when they can sleep in?
As for the second problem, I guess that's just the problem with NYC bedrooms. Here in Chicago we can fit a cheap queen-size into nearly any apartment.
Hitting the Red Line at 3am? You may as well sleep on a couch and take a cab home at 6am; you'd likely get there faster.
Dude, there is no, no way I can bring Mr. 38 year old businessman back to my dinky apartment, even if I were to see him again, which I won't. I just can't. He would never, ever go for it. He is not the type.
(I'd have to pull out my trundle bed for him to sleep on.)
Then Mr. 38 year-old businessman can enjoy his Upper West Side solitude. I really don't see any reason to give him another chance, since he's clearly more interested in his comfort and advantage than in being kind to people he has sex with.
Absolutely. Someone who you would expect to sneer at the hospitality you can offer is a useless jerk.
I thought it was determined by the end of the post that he doesn't get another chance, and we're just brainstorming the most enjoyable way for Tia to reject his ass.
just brainstorming the most enjoyable way for Tia to reject his ass
Hide battery-powered alarm clocks, scheduled to go off between 4:00 & 8:00 AM (inclusive) all over the apartment, including the walls.
Give his photo to every cab driver you see, claiming he's known for skipping fares, not tipping, and once actually took money from his cabbie.
362: The Red Line isn't bad at all, even at the late night hours. It's when you end up in places that have no L line for blocks that you're screwed (damn you, Empty Bottle!)
the most enjoyable way for Tia to reject his ass
Wait a couple of weeks, then angrily accuse him of giving you syphillis.
I hear the owners The Mineshaft have opened a new place down the street. Trying to draw in a different crowd. Welcome to The Growler.
I guess I misread some of thread drift as a weakening of resolve.
As for how to reject him, I'm for vaguely implying he was a shitty lover. So what if that's not entirely true? The man needs to try harder.
Jackmormon has the right idea. You don't even have to worry about him "knowing that you enjoyed it". Guys are naturally a little paranoid about women faking it anyway.
Re the necessity of letting someone stay the night after a hook-up -- the key instructional text is Looking for Mr. Goodbar.
372 reminds me of that scene from Waiting.
If I were a woman...
I'd woman in the morning
I'd woman in the evening
All over this land.
It occurs to me that that situation with the boyfriend persisted even after college when he became the exboyfriend I sometimes hooked up with; at times when he's been totally broke, but visiting me in the city, I've paid for us to see shows, get food, and all sorts of stuff.
309 gets it exactly right. Gender and relative incomes and the "you slept with a stranger" nonsense are complete and utter irrelevancies. If you have a friend over and they have a long trip home in the middle of the night, you ask them to stay. If they can't, for whatever reason, and they don't have the money for cab fare on them, you offer it to them. It's simple good manners. And yes, we're entitled to complain when people are rude.
And speaking of rude, telling people "well, you can't really be surprised" is rude, by the way.
we're entitled to complain when people are rude.
This opinion brought to you by a woman named Bitch.
Gender and relative incomes and the "you slept with a stranger" nonsense are complete and utter irrelevancies
Maybe they should be, but are they in practice? Would you say it's really the norm for a woman to pay for a man's cab fare, in the circumstances?
It doesn't seem like it would be all that common. Doing it for a friend is a different matter.
The thing about it is, sometimes I simply enjoy sex on a purely physical level, without any baggage about gender roles or power struggles or related whatnot. I actually just enjoy touching an attractive woman's body, and having her touch mine. I enjoy the sensations of sex, in and of themselves. If this makes me a "pervert" in someone's eyes, then I guess I'm a pervert.
Heterosexual sex doesn't have to be "implied rape", even if someone is on the bottom and someone else is on top. And a cab ride home is no different.
379: Specifically because I'm aware that doing the things I'm entitled to do counts as bitchy in some people's eyes, yes.
380: I think anyone who fucks you gets to count as a "friend" at least until the next morning.
382- Ideally, yes, but I think you're dodging the question.
Heterosexual sex doesn't have to be "implied rape", even if someone is on the bottom and someone else is on top. And a cab ride home is no different.
In my experience, cab rides are always implied rape.
383: I'd do it. And if it's not the norm, it should be.
Given that it's not responding to anything identifiable, I'd say probably.
I do think that if the genders are reversed in this story, the guy who takes the subway home is on some level just paying a price for some play, and the presumption is that he's a big boy who just got laid, and therefore can't complain too much. He's being treated like crap, but generates less sympathy.
381 was to 378. Not parody, though admittedly hyperbolic.
388: I think that's right. It doesn't feel wrong somehow. I usually slept over though, whenever that was actually permissible, so it's a rare occurance to have to go home when you weren't expecting to.
Will you pick a handle, anonymous person who right now isn't making much sense?
Okay. (a) Pick a name. I don't care what it is, but I hate looking at the blank space. If you're looking to engage, we've got to be able to call you something. And (b) What's this about?
I actually just enjoy touching an attractive woman's body, and having her touch mine. I enjoy the sensations of sex, in and of themselves. If this makes me a "pervert" in someone's eyes, then I guess I'm a pervert.
Who said pervert? Who said there's anything wrong with anyone's enjoying sex? We've been talking about whether it makes you a jerk to kick a sex partner out of your apartment in the middle of the night (Yes), and then not pay for her cab fare (I say no, that isn't any worse than the initial inhospitableness. Many disagree.). What on earth are you on about?
Huh. The scare quotes take it so far across the line into self-parody, I figured it was intentional. Unless the anonymous person is Jack Handey.
I second 391, since I like to know who it is I'm disdaining.
Again, LB gets it right in 392.
LB, I think the point is that by saying women can pay for cab fare, I'm saying that all heterosexual sex is effectively rape. Because nothing's more emasculating than having a woman pay for something.
I'm just saying that I can't think of ever hearing a story about a romantic situation involving a woman putting a man in a cab and paying, and can think of five or six the other way around--a female friend was just telling me such a story the other day. And for myself, assume that's meaningful somehow, in terms of norms and expectations and gender relations. Even if one wants to change them.
Plus I'm illustrating my own point in 233. It seems a different thing to argue about how things are, and how they should be. And it gets blurred a lot of the time.
Doing it for a friend is a different matter.
You know, I have a friend who comes to my neighborhood when we grab drinks, and I usually walk her home afterward (our neighborhood's a little risky), but since I was mugged I've been relunctant to do too much walking around late (cf., risky neighborhood) and so the other night I put her in a cab instead. I know that she makes less than I do, so I thought I ought to pick it up, but I didn't want to seem like a big mac and hand it to the cabbie. I also didn't want to just hand her money, but that's what I did, and it was a little awkward. Especially since compounding everything was the fact that I was not cool with walking through my neighborhood.
In any event I think it's the right thing to do, but I don't think it exactly falls under the purview of "manners."
390: I think the difference also has a lot to do with guys being seen as less vulnerable in the streets of a big city at night. I know that I wouldn't dream of sending a girl off on some of the late-night buses and trains I've caught through sketchy neighborhoods after hookups. Being a poor-looking boy has some serious advantages in this case.
And if it's not the norm, it should be.
Given that we're talking about what norms actually exist, that's confusing. I think determining who is departing from the implied plan is the important part. If a friend of mine came over and decided he didn't want to crash on the couch, I wouldn't feel obliged to pay for his cab home by social nicities. If he didn't have cash on him, I'd give him some. But I don't think that would have anything to do with his coming over to my place; rather, he's a friend, and you give/lend your friends cash on the assumption that it all works out in the end.
nothing's more emasculating than having a woman pay for something.
Except when they pay me for sex.
Dragging your ass home in the middle of the night fucking sucks whether or not it's actually dangerous. I maintain that it is polite to offer to get a friend home at 3 am simply for that reason, quite apart from the facts that men can get mugged too, and that women are far less likely to be raped on the street than people believe.
400: Yeah, to the extent that I was arguing about this upthread, I was arguing against the idea that there was a strong enough norm governing the situation that Roger Hitler was additionally a jerk for not overriding Tia when she said that she was going to take the subway.
Roger Hitler was additionally a jerk
That's Sir Roger Hitler to you, young lady.
If a friend of mine came over and decided he didn't want to crash on the couch, I wouldn't feel obliged to pay for his cab home by social nicities. If he didn't have cash on him, I'd give him some. But I don't think that would have anything to do with his coming over to my place; rather, he's a friend, and you give/lend your friends cash on the assumption that it all works out in the end.
That's exactly what I'm saying. First, if a friend came over you'd ask him if he wanted to crash on your couch. Second if he didn't want to and had a long and inconvenient train ride home and no cash, you'd lend him the cash to take a cab. Not because you'd feel obligated, but because it's the decent thing to do and he'd do the same if the shoe were on the other foot.
Isn't the origin of the phrase "mad money" the idea that women should go out with enough cash that if they get mad at the guy they're out with they'll be able to take a cab home?
And, maybe I'm nastily suspicious or maybe I'm morally reactionary or maybe I'm a bit sluttish, but it takes me quite a bit more than a tumble or two before a comparative stranger counts as a friend.
406: ding ding ding! OED says, "1922 Dial. Notes 5 148 *Mad money, money a girl carries in case she has a row with her escort and wishes to go home alone."
OK, I realize this may not be what's being addressed here, and that we're just discussing the general case now. But I think it's worth repeating that in Tia's specific case, the man's phrasing ("Let's put you in a cab.") and a prior understanding that she expected to be well taken-care of, strongly favor the interpretation that he was leading Tia to believe that he would take care of the fare, a determination mostly separate from any putative norms governing the situation.
403: But the problem is, she didn't say, "no, I have to get up early tomorrow, I'll just hop on the subway" in response to, say, a question like, "it's late, do you want to spend the night?" She said it in response to his telling her she should leave because he wanted to sleep in the next morning, and then saying "let's put you in a cab" (Tia: "okay") and then, "do you have cab fare or do you need to go to an ATM?" (Tia: Um, nevermind, I'll just take the train.") Under those circumstances, it's rude not to say "don't be silly, I've got some cash right here."
When you offer to do something--"let's"--and the other person agrees, saying "do you have the cash" is potentially rude, or it could be just a neutral inquiry. If the latter, though, and the person makes it clear that they don't, then it's rude to ignore the fact that they can't afford to do the thing that you know is preferable (or you wouldn't have mentioned the cab in the first place).
a prior understanding that she expected to be well taken-care of,
The question is how, or whether, that was communicated. I am guessing that between Tia and her broke ex-boyfriend who she takes care of when he's visiting, his state of brokeness is an explicit topic of discussion: he says something along the lines of 'I can't afford to go out', and in response she says stuff like "I'll get dinner," or "The movies are on me". (This is a guess: I could be wrong.)
I don't get the impression that Tia had that sort of explicit discussion of her finances with Roger H. -- he may know what she does for a living, but not that a $40 cab ride is enough for her that she'd rather take the train. Without that sort of explicit discussion, I don't think he's obliged to pay for her transportation.
he's a friend, and you give/lend your friends cash on the assumption that it all works out in the end
So once difference, then, is that you assume a long timeline in friendships, one night stands, not so much.
410: I was going off of 13, which says "Under all of the circumstances, some of which I chose not to elaborate on in the post, he knew very well I wanted to be taken care of."
Continuing 412:
Now, you can doubt that Tia was correct about what Sir Bacon was thinking, but determining that would require looking further into the details of the evening, which Tia has said she's disinclined to do. And taking her statement as probably true, I think my analysis applies.
412: Yeah. I'm doubting the efficiacy with which that presumed understanding was communicated. Obviously, I could be wrong: I wasn't there, I don't know either of them.
414 -- So are you calling Tia a liar?
411: No, but you assume that if you were the one who had to bivouac across the city, you'd prefer to take a cab, and that if you were cash poor, you'd be kind of irked.
And like Tia said: this guy ain't fucking her again. I think that it's kind of crappy to go into a one night stand with the attitude that, even if you don't particularly want to fuck the person again, you're going to treat them as if they were disposable.
Man, incite much? No, of course not. I think she may have overrelied on assuming that der Fuhrer shared the same expectations for the evening, in terms of covering her expenses, than she did, and that she would have been better off to make those assumptions explicit.
"Irked," I mean, at having to take an hour and a half train ride in the wee hours.
417 -- just hoping to be witness to a cat-fight.
416- Simply saying there is a different feeling going on in a one night stand, something other than friendship. Different atmosphere, different expectations, different timeline than friendship. You can still demonstrate basic decency, but it would have a slightly different quality. Possibly a more gendered one. Who pays for what would be more of an issue all evening than in a friendship situation.
Sure, but what I'm saying is that if you think of it (and in fact most dating) as being friendly in nature, it overcomes a lot of the anxiety and clarifies questions about things like whether or not it's rude to kick someone out in the middle of the night. If you wouldn't do it to a friend, you shouldn't do it to someone you're sleeping with.
Stop calling me a rapist, feminazi.
If you wouldn't do it to a friend, you shouldn't do it to someone you're sleeping with.
This, absolutely.
What if you really don't like the person you're sleeping with?
So once difference, then, is that you assume a long timeline in friendships, one night stands, not so much.
Yeah, I'm of no help there. I've never had a classic one night stand. I've alway known the person, or the broader group to which the person belongs. That's why I'm personally leary of judging the appropriate norm: I don't have experience backing me up.
And like Tia said: this guy ain't fucking her again.
This is another reason I wonder about the norm. Assuming cash isn't a problem, who fucks up a later shot at sex over $40? It makes me think he didn't know about the norm.
you're going to treat them as if they were disposable.
Basically the reason I don't think I'd be able to kick someone out after sex, even if I didn't really want them to stay. But, seriously, somewhere up in the wilds of this thread is something that made me think it's not so weird, apparently, for some people to ask someone to take off. At which point, I admit I'm befuddled about appropriate behavior. It's not entirely clear to me that asking someone to leave and giving them cash to do so would be immediately obvious to me as the proper way to respond. Though, should it come up (unlikely), now I know.
What if you really don't like the person you're sleeping with?
Fuck'em
Becks' 29, maybe, in which she talks about the standard practice of a male friend of hers?
425: So typical of you to defend rape.
Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of your bra burning.
One gendered thing going on would be the cultural script that a guy doesn't necessarily want to hang around anyway--aren't there a million movies featuring some scene with a guy sneaking out the window as early as possible? Not necessarily true in real life at all, but factoring into expectations.
432: Can you hear the sound of my hairy legs scritching together?
Is that what that is? I figured it was your testicle necklace.
I think she may have overrelied on assuming that der Fuhrer shared the same expectations for the evening, in terms of covering her expenses, than she did, and that she would have been better off to make those assumptions explicit.
C'mon, Tia, everyone deserves a second look.
Necklace? I don't wear jewelry. It just gives men rapists something to choke a person with. Jewelry is the invention of the patriarchy.
435: The correct answer is: "Not until you unclamp them from my ears."
Fucking forgot to preview:
Necklace? I don't wear jewelry. It just gives men rapists something to choke a person with. Jewelry is the invention of the patriarchy.
438 is good, although "ears" s/b "back". Real men don't dive.
Joe! Did you just admit that you've never had a woman bend her legs all the way back and rest her calves on your shoulders?
No, silly. They just don't clamp my ears when they do that.
Unless Joe has no neck, that still wouldn't cover his ears.
443: Nonsense. Most men's torsos are a little longer than most women's (read: my) thighs, so the knees don't bend at a 90-degree angle, and therefore the calves do, in fact, tend to angle up across the ears.
Having, more than once, been in the comparable situation but as the person being chucked out in the middle of the night -- 'I'd rather you weren't here when my parents get up in the morning'; 'I'm on early shift and have to leave at 6am', etc. -- I'd have been pretty bloody surprised if the person I was with offered me cab fare home.
For all the talk of gender parity on this issue, there just isn't. It simply doesn't happen. Offering to pay for a meal with a friend you know can't afford it is really *not* the same thing as handing someone you've hooked up with $40 for the cab fare home and I suspect you'd search long and hard to ever find a case where that's happened and the person handing over the cash is female and the person taking it is male.
None of that makes the guy any less rude for chucking someone out in the middle of the night for what seem like profoundly selfish reasons but that issue and the cash issue seem like separate things.
Shit, I wouldn't go out somewhere in the middle of the night without knowing how I'd get home if, for example, the hook-up didn't work out, or if an argument happened or if I didn't feel well, or any one of innumerable other reasons. And I wouldn't expect someone else to be taking care of that for me. Getting myself home is the sort of thing I've been taking care of *for myself* since I was old enough to actually go out at night at all.
And that isn't a gendered safety issue -- young guys are actually massively more likely to be vicitms of violence alone at night in a city than young women. The rate of assault on young guys, as I know from direct personal experience, is scarily high.
I'd still be pretty pissed off at being chucked out after sex - none of the above comments takes away from the rudeness of the situation and it makes the person a shitty hook-up and not someone to see again -- but I wouldn't be griping about not being handed the cash so I could get home.
I presume from comments above that LB is making a similar point.
Having, more than once, been in the comparable situation but as the person being chucked out in the middle of the night . . .
Yeah, Scottish women are hard that way. I always felt so used.
I can go along with 446, with the caveat that in the accidental circumstance where one's hookup is short on cash, it's polite to offer to hand them a twenty or whatever.
Scottish women are hard
You sure they were women, M/tch?
You sure they were women, M/tch?
Maybe that's why they didn't pay for my cab!
Now that I think about it, though, I'm almost completely certain they were female. Because in the morning at breakfast it always seemed to happen that what I had mistaken for her flatmates were actually her parents, and then she would come in dressed in her girl's school uniform.
Oooohh, that's embarrassing. On the bright side, it's slightly better than crapping yourself in the girl's bed before encountering her parents in the morning.
452 gets "gets it exactly right" exactly right.
re: 448
Yes, they are -- Scottish women are teh badass. Also, prone to ripping you a new arsehole if you're rude: 'Whit the fuck d'ye mean chuckin' me out in the middle of the night ya rude insensitive bastard, that's the last you'll see o' ma fanny and that's no mistake...' etc [I'm not really exaggerating, either]
re: 453
I presume that's a Trainspotting reference. Ironically, I have actually hooked up in that club, the one they used in the film. It used to be called the Volcano and was a sleazy but fun dive in the university end of Glasgow. They knocked it down ages ago.
This dilemma is much more stark in cities where the subway closes at night. I remember convincing myself a couple of times that I really wanted to take a walk to watch the sunrise while waiting for the trains to start running again.
333: 'my eye. I can't think of anywhere where it's OK to have sex with someone and not let them stay the night.'
I'm worried that that might be considered okay in Stockholm. Also worrying is not knowing, since I'll probably live there pretty soon.
If there were any place where, by culture, habit of explicitness, and the general safety of the place, I can imagine it would be ok, or less bad, it would be Stockholm.
I'm with David here. If I ever thought the walk to a metro stop was cold and dark and lonely by the Great Lakes, imagine what it must be like in the icy winter of northern Scandinavia.
Okay, I'm waaaaaay late to this thread, but I basically agree with the consensus above and yada yada yada, except the one thing I'm really still confused about is: isn't Tia a lesbian? (Or was that just some long-running joke to which I was totally oblivious?)
Erm, I think you just got the wrong end of the stick somehow.
Well of course you're all lesbians, but I thought Tia was, you know, even more lesbian than the rest of you. I really thought I'd read this, on more than one occassion. A google search of the site is failing to produce evidence to that effect however.
So either Tia used to be a lesbian, but has since gone hetero and cleaned up the archives to remove any evidence of her former "lifestyle" (I just knew all those server errors were a cover for some sort of mischief!), or possibly I am misremebering something.
Is someone here a lesbian??
I think someone is an out lesbian, but I don't remember who, though I don't think it's a frequent commenter.
Look within yourself for the answer.
Err...I meant to say something like, "AFAIK, Tia never claimed to be a lesbian," and then yada yada.
These might be the lesbians you're looking for.
At some point I was under the impression that majikthise was a lesbian, but I'm not sure how I got into that state. Maybe it was because she wouldn't fuck me.
Moira from SnarkAttack in the blogroll is gay, but I can't see how you could have mixed her up with Tia -- she's not around all that much. Can't think of anyone else offhand.
I should really be keeping dossiers on all of you for when questions like this come up. SCMT, of course, is the elusive type. We were hoping to trick a handwriting sample out of him through the fundraiser, but he was too cautious.
474: I did too -- Ogged described her as the 'Lesbian Elvis' someplace, and I assumed it was accurate. Found out fairly recently that it wasn't, and it took me ages to remember where the misconception had come from.
I think Tia's said stuff about sleeping with women once or twice, though, hasn't she? Tia, we're talking about your sex life over here. Where are you?
Maybe. For "lesbian" I think 'never or rarely has sex with men', not so much 'has had sex with women'. Under the expansive definition, I think AWB is or has been at least somewhat bi.
"Lesbian Elvis" is such a great descriptor that she really ought to at least give lesbianism a try.
I'm not saying that would make anyone a lesbian, I'm just wondering if maybe that could be where someone got the impression.
Labs is really gay, right? That wasn't a joke too was it??
I'm definitely not confusing Tia with whoever runs snark attack -- which I've never even heard of.
I'm really just baffled. Oh well.
477: I thought she said she slept with w-lfs-n, and his dick is so small, he might as well be a woman. But I might be misremembering.
Not mostly, or so I understand. But that one's a perfectly reasonable mistake -- he does frequently claim to be.
Have you got the nerve to be Queen Elvis?
My worldview is being shattered tonight. Just so you know.
477: I thought she said she slept with w-lfs-n, and his dick is so small, he might as well be a woman. But I might be misremembering.
Come on! If I were a woman I'd probably be better at cunnilingus.
482: Oh, I think you must be misremembering, Tim. B/c that's not something anyone who slept with w-lfs-n would say.
Consider, for example, the testimony of girl27. (Link to context-providing comment; girl27's comment two below.)
w-lfs-n, how the white Cornel West became the mac daddy daddy mac of the blogosphere I will never understand. But I wave my private parts in your general direction as a sign of respect.
Labs is really gay, right?
Only when it's convenient.
Urple, to find out Labs's status, when you meet him use a good, firm grip. Your odds might be better if you lube him with some cosmos first.
But alcohol is so drying to sensitive tissues.
493: LB: I don't know why it struck just struck me, but I think I nice present for your kids' tenth birthdays would be to print out all of your comments and have them bound into a book. Just a thought.
Eh, by that time they'll probably have read the whole site.
I eagerly await the dawn of the rule of our new reptilian overlords.
494 and urple's conceptions of commenters are awesome!
LB, you probably shouldn't let Urple in on the one about how you're really a world-famous expert on home organization and a part time music reviewer.
497: You forgot the skeet shooting championship.
Thanks for the assist.
What's the longest comment thread on this blog?
"Thanks for the assist" s/b "WEINER SNOOZ WEINER LOOZ"
Ever since I got the only 1000, I haven't felt particularly competitive about the other, lesser, round numbers.
Also, I just got timed out on a comment, but I won't bother to repost it since it said almost nothing.
Jaysus. I remember that thread, but I think I must have stopped reading after the first several hundred comments.
Eh, by that time they'll probably have read the whole site.
By that time it'll be Remembrance of Things Past x the O.E.D. in size, so maybe not.
I'm pretty sure Labs is gay. I distinctly remember his dick tasting like shit.
I want to hear Urple's guesses about other commenters' proclivities!
511: You know, if I were really on my game, I would have said I distinctly remember Michael telling me that Labs' dick tasted like shit.
Damn.
(Breezily): Oh well!
My wife's friend Jane's young son announced,
in case we didn't know it,
"Women-have-proclivities
Men-have-propensities."
This thread did 477 comments in its first twenty-four hours. Innocence only did 213 in that time, though I think the pace picked up later. This could get bad.
On the other hand, SB just won it, so there's little point in continuing.
After reading all 516 comments, I walked over to my wife, handed her $40 and told her "You know, for the cab." From her reaction, I think it's safe to say that all these rules y'all established are not universal. If you need me, I'll be on the couch.
Mention of the blogroll made me check Rivka's site to see if it was still dormant. Nope. She just posted today on the HPV vaccine.
It's not my place to suggest it but I will: should Ogged's other blog get added to the blogroll?
No, you did it wrong. You're supposed to give her the cash, and say, "you know—for the caboose", and then pat her on the ass.
I just got an interesting error.
I was told I didn't have javascript turned on. But I do so after a pause I reposted and it worked.
You were told that you should try turning it on, not that you definitely had it off.
521.--My God, now he's also the site administrator.
478, practically speaking, yes. I have not, technically, "dated" a girl, so I am useless for info like "how to introduce one's girlfriend to one's mom."
Get with the times, Jackmormon.
522: Actually, that's alright. It's not that easy to make good dirty jokes about scripting. I trust in Ben's double entendre quality control.
Well I tried turning it on, only to see that it was on. But I understand now that it is the effort that counts. Now I need to try to tune in.
Oh, 'But I do so' s/b 'But I do, so'. My eyes hurt reading that. Amazing what a missing comma can do.
519: that might have the same end result, though.
(meant to post this around noon, forgot and left the window open) I once had a date where I went home to a woman's apartment, and after we had been talking for a while, she noted, in an attempt to get me to stay, that the bus and trains had stopped running. Being my ever-helpful self, I offered that it was no trouble for me to walk [5 miles] home. Fortunately, she got out the bricks shortly after that.
I don't know that cabs would have occurred to either of us, had we not, in fact, been trying to get into each other's pants but being pathalogically unable to act on it.
I don't know that cabs would have occurred to either of us, had we not, in fact, been trying to get into each other's pants but being pathalogically unable to act on it.
MIT, I see.
517: If my husband handed me $40, I'd say, "thanks, honey."
522 is exactly right. Also, I laughed.
Fortunately, she got out the bricks shortly after that.
"Got out the bricks"?
531: Yeah, I was puzzled by that too.
MIT, I see.
Talk about sleeping furiously.
I hadn't yet realized the full horror, w-lfs-n. I can only hope that the powers are balanced.
To echo: "Got out the bricks"? Eh?
I told her I worked in the morning and started to laugh.
She told me she didn't and smashed me in the face with a brick.
Clearly "get out the bricks" implies, in context, that she suggested that the taxi-driver would be better off taking the fare for free: she showed the driver her "bricks"--or muscles, presumably backed by an intimination of a network of musclles--and the driver, thereby cowed by the show of and future threat of "bricks," agrees to transport the lucky male for free!
"to have a brick in one's hat" means: to be drunk. Clearly, she broke out the amontillado and, walled up together away from prying eyes, transportation was no longer of any concern.
They walled up transportation?!
No, no, no. As the truly travelled commenter understands, "bricks" is the anglicized version of "briques," which, of course, is a large-ish unit of hashish. So, when she "got out the bricks," she either got him high enough to withstand his promenade home without complaint, OR, and this is the interpretation I favor, she loaded him up with the night's deliveries, and their understanding that he could skim off the top or off the profits pacified his sexual frustration.
The problem with your theory, JM, is that you read the implicit conclusion to Nathan MIT's story to be that he went home. When, in fact, he meant the opposite.
Yes. Commissioner of Transportation Montresor ordered the Fortunato Line closed. He claimed it was for lack of ridership, but the real reason was that the maintenance costs - already high due to the thousands of injuries the tracks had sustained - were now too high to be borne, and the trains let out long whines of despair from the depths of the tunnels each time they passed by.
513: Like a cat licking its fur after it falls off the chair. Amusingly retarded, yet an endearing attempt to maintain dignity.
"Got out the bricks"?
She got his nuts out of the file drawer and explained what would happen to them if he did that again.
ash
['NNNhhhGGGhHGH! NO! Anything but that!']
Okay, I haven't been able to follow this thread in real time since about comment 250 or so.
It is, perhaps, unfair of me to be so prejudiced against "your skin is so soft."
So, I have a question for all of you. Has anyone felt her (or even his) date had read some book on how to get laid or Why Nice Guys Don't Get Chicks and was trying to implement the advice contained therein.
Dude, I have never even kissed a woman. I swear y'all conceive of me as more sexually adventurous than I am, but I guess I did things to further that impression. There are probably comments I've made about wanting to have sex with Scarlett Johannsen, but that's (mostly) tongue in cheek. Also, I have a secret weiner. Anyway, I still dispute that what an adult can do has any relevance to what an adult should have to do if someone else has accepted as a guest. I would never tell my guest, "Oh, can you wash all your towels and sheets before you leave?" even though adults normally wash their bedding. Nor do I really understand why not helping me with cab fare doesn't make him more of a dick (again, my construal of his options is actually more generous), since it would have mitigated the harm to me. Also, I think ttam's girlfriends were very rude if they didn't make it clear to him he couldn't sleep over before he went. But none of this is relevant to this guy, actually, because apart from the question of what the set of single urban dating people do or should have as norms, the fact is Sir Roger Bacon and I are both members of a subgroup in which the norms are such that it is near insanity that he let me take the train home, which probably contributed more to "gobsmacked" than I made clear, and I was reminded of exactly how insane it was last night, by a guy who totally understood how to behave and did everything exactly right. I know, I've been slutting around this week. Sue me.
544 -- didt'n we have a whole thread about that a few months ago, arising from a ludicrous Village Voice article about such a book and the guys who use it?
I was reminded of exactly how insane it was last night, by a guy who totally understood how to behave and did everything exactly right.
Hooray! I mean, thank you.
Time will be. Time is. Time was.
Tia only horndogs on the laydeez when she's drunk.
From memory. You find the thread.
There still hasn't been an explanation for "got out the bricks".
Google is silent to its use as an idiom.
I'd think it means something like "hit the bricks", but that would mean she left her own apartment so that you could stay there for the night. Fortunate indeed.
I would never tell my guest, "Oh, can you wash all your towels and sheets before you leave?" even though adults normally wash their bedding.
Last summer I was working at a place with a very small staff -- 6 or 7 people. At the end of the summer the director had a little dinner party for us all at his apartment. On the subway up to his place, one of my supervisors warned us that he and his wife would expect us to do the dishes before we left.
The first time she ever went to a party at his place everyone was about to leave when the director's wife got up and said, "Okay everyone! Time to do the dishes!"
Talk about gobsmacked. Just goes to show that in this crazy city, people really aren't all on the same page with respect to etiquette.
546: Oh we had the thread about the stupid nice guy who feels put upon, because he can't get girls when, really, he may not be all that.
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about feeling that the person you're with read Dating for Dummies and was trying to follow its rules slavishly. It's the mechanical quality of the whole thing that's so weird.
Were you thinking about this post on The Game? "I have a friend who wants to buy a wallaby" 'n'at?
Regarding my "got out the bricks" in 528: My prose clearly needs work; this was one of those phrases that made perfect sense in my head and apparantly nobody else's. The intended allusion was to needing to be hit with a brick to get through my obliviousness. That obliviousness being demonstrated by the fact that instead of picking up and running with the idea that I should stay there, I had instead proposed a semi-outlandish way to leave, puzzling her greatly as to what my intentions were.
Permit me to rephrase: "Fortunately, she gave up on being subtle shortly after that and made it clear that she wanted me in bed."
Well that was damned decent of her. Though, I gotta ask, how were you 5 miles away from home in Cambridge? Unless... Hasn't anyone ever told you not to mess around with those crazy Crimson chicks?
555: What would have been really awesome is if it would have been a Krazy Kat reference.
Before the explanation in 555, I was hoping "bricks" in "got out the bricks" was Cockney rhyming slang for "strap-on pricks" or something like that.
My comment didn't go through the first time.
Hasn't anyone ever told you not to mess around with those crazy Crimson chicks?
Don't go there.
Or she'll totally snap and hunt you down.
Sounds like you have something you want to say, BG.
558: Dat's oll right, "Ignatz," I ken jist walk home.
*POW*
a guy who totally understood how to behave and did everything exactly right
So he handed you $40 before he kicked you out at 3 a.m.?
bitch, I think Tia means that I agreed to go halfsies on the raccoon costume I asked her to wear.
Sigh. Late to the party again.
The only halfway relevant experience I can relate involved my being invited home by a lady architect who was gone when I woke up the next morning. No note, no breakfast, just a $100 bill in my shoe.
For perspective, this was long enough ago that my cab ride home (lower Manhattan to Park Slope in Brooklyn) was probably about $8 plus tip.
So, here's my question: Should I have called her again?
Sigh. Late to the party again.
The only halfway relevant experience I can relate involved my being invited home by a lady architect who was gone when I woke up the next morning. No note, no breakfast, just a $100 bill in my shoe.
For perspective, this was long enough ago that my cab ride home (lower Manhattan to Park Slope in Brooklyn) was probably about $8 plus tip.
So, here's my question: Should I have called her again?
Sorry for the double-post. Not sure what happened.
The answer is yes. Sounds like you could have made some nice walking-around money.
Depends. Did you enjoy your work?
Sir Roger Bacon just wrote me. I wonder what I should do or say. I'm tempted to just not answer, but I suppose that's wrong.
I think an unexplained "No, thank you" (assuming the email is an invitation for a date) gets your point across clearly, without unnecessary hostility.
Tia -- I thought the whole point of this exercise was coming up with ways for you to cut him off when he contacted you to ask you out again. Why not, "Where the fuck do you get off writing to me all friendly and glib when you kicked me out of your apartment without even cab fare to get home, asshole?"
Or maybe that would be unnecessarily hostile.
Seriously, though, LB's 574 sounds right to me.
That's right. If he'll take no for an answer, fine. If he won't, you can tell him that you didn't like what happened.
His email was actually asking me how my classes were going. That's part of why I feel sort of confused. It seems sort of weird to say, "fine, and by the way I don't want to see you again."
So just say "fine" and make no reference to seeing him again. If he brings it up in reply, say "no, thanks."
That I wouldn't respond to. (Assuming you're not friends on a level where the email would have been normal even without the date. If you know each other that well, you should be chewing him out if you're mad at him.)
580 -- but "where do you get off contacting me" still works!
Tia, in that case, I wouldn't respond. Or at least, wait many days before doing so.
Okay, I won't respond. That was my initial impulse.