50-something frat guy is just an idiot, as well as a jerk.

What I want to know is, did you tell him off? Or did you complacently let it slide, thereby perpetuating the idea that such behavior is acceptable? Hmmm?

but the issue today was

Reading skills, B, reading skills.

Perhaps the third definition under that entry suits your needs?

I dunno, you think there's an obligation to interrupt conversations you're overhearing rather than participating in to object to sexist/racist language? That seems above and beyond to me.

Don't know what 'unit' meant in that context. Body considered as a whole, perhaps?

What I want to know is, did you tell him off? Or did you complacently let it slide, thereby perpetuating the idea that such behavior is acceptable? Hmmm?

Heh. Oops.

I'm sure that Ogged left out his response because he was afraid that it might have sounded as if he was bragging (if he would have posted it).

Ogged is just very humble.

I'm sure that's it.

Nah, she's fit, but not buff.

Perhaps he also liked the nice new swimming suit.

Probably the guy was looking for a way to compliment her that didn't seem leering (and failed on both counts.)

you think there's an obligation to interrupt conversations you're overhearing rather than participating in to object to sexist/racist language? That seems above and beyond to me.

Nonsense. Ogged is under an obligation to make up for all his Jessica Biel ogling, especially since he's going to die from the brain cancer. That, plus he's all new and saccharine these days.

At least you should have given him a dirty look. (Which is really what I would have done.)

Ogged is under an obligation to make up for all his Jessica Biel ogling, especially since he's going to die from the brain cancer.

Well, yes. This, of course.

Plus giving people dirty looks is good for the eye muscles. Keeps you from developing crows' feet and becoming old and ugly.

I count it as a victory that they no longer address such comments to me.

The comments in the yoda girl thread are pretty funny.

As a youth I heard this term used in identical circumstances and it caused me similar revulsion/confusion.

B, we all know your obsession with Ogged's Biel-oggling just means you're jealous.

Enough with the presidents!

I think the word "can" is a bit too versatile in its vulgar uses. When a word can mean either "boob", "ass", or "bathroom", we should give it up for dead.

15: Huh? I can ogle Jessica's ass any time I like.

I usually just people people when they say things that imply distasteful things abotu them. i'm not sure i'd want someone defending my honour if i was a part of some often-maligned group, although not being part of one, maybe thats wrong.

Maybe he meant her lightsaber, or her brown cloak.

ok, so my first thought when reading the comment "unit" was the thunderbox, which seemed like a weird thing to be checking out. then i thought of ass, a few seconds later.

She did have her back to us as she got out of the pool.

Why would she have one of these at the pool?

Was she carrying any type of firearm?

Light saber, perhaps?

LB, God! I'm trying to ask a serious question, and you have to step in and steal the limelight with your clever little throw-away line. Can't we ever discuss anything seriously here?

Not to rehash old debates, but it would be fine for 50-something frat guy to say one of the lifeguards (assuming he and the lifeguard were on friendly terms), "I find that young woman attractive, do you agree?" right?

Preemptively, I agree that women are are presently (and at all past times which I'm aware of) overly-objectified, and that one symptom of this is that the people are too quick to consider evaluations of their physical attractiveness normal topics of conversation, but I don't see how using social pressure against the type of exchange which happened here is going to be a way to change that.

Stupid remember info.

27: Okay, this is actually a serious comment (unlike the others). The point would be that, just like for white folks, there's this assumption that men among men can make comments like that because all the guys think that way, it's all just good fun, ha ha. Which sucks for women who (1) overhear it; (2) get called humorless because boys-will-be-boys stuff of that nature bothers them. (And really, if you knew that whenever you're wearing a swimsuit, you're being constantly evaluated, you'd feel kinda uncomfortable about it.) I don't care if the 50-something frat guy changes his attitude; I just want those guys to learn to keep their mouths shut in public.

The point would be that, just like for white folks, there's this assumption that men among men can make comments like that because all the guys think that way, it's all just good fun, ha ha.

The assumption is that all people think that way. Maybe you've never heard women remark on men while sitting poolside or at the beach, but I have. The requirement is to be discreet, short and non-obsessive, not rude, and infrequent. Certainly much more so for men than women. But people find people attractive, and communicate about it.

For the record, there were no women within earshot.

I just want those guys to learn to keep their mouths shut in public.

The requirement is to be discreet, short and non-obsessive, not rude, and infrequent.

I think these two sets of requirements are the same, pretty much. I wasn't there, but to the extent that 50-yr-old guy was talking about the lifeguard's unit in a manner that was clearly audible to ogged, who he wasn't talking to, he wasn't discreet and he was rude. If you're keeping your conversation to yourself and your friends, that's one thing -- blaring your evaluation of the lifeguard's ass to the whole pool is another.

Hey, you guys, wasn't there a thread here somewhere about what to do about a persistent headache (or was that on another blog)?

I've got to stay up all night again and write another paper (I finished the last one at 7 am), and I think I've got an eyestrain-headache from looking at the computer too long, but I have to work. Help! It hurts!

clearly audible to ogged

He was three feet away from me, and about five feet away from the lifeguard. A couple of other people were swimming and the woman was at the other end of the pool. And he kept his voice down.

You know what, that was on AskMeFi. Nevermind.

32: Exactly.

LeBlanc, stop surfing the web. Look at us, we're all "we're going to work now!" and here we are. Bad!

My advice is grab a pad of paper or something and walk to a coffeeshop and write something in longhand for a li'l while. Then you'll be started and it'll be easier to keep WORKING when you get back to the computer.

Ready, set, go!

I can't, though, because I'm doing research as I go, because I'm a horrible student. And everything is on the interwebs.

Maybe I should print something out. I feel hysterical.

If you're hysterical, seriously, go write longhand somewhere away from the computer. It'll calm down the hysteria and you can just note the things you need to look up when you get to them.

I've always hated that kind of remark, must not have been able to conceal that, and been scored as humorless because of it. I've always assumed that remarks like that are to see who's willing to bond, share, be on the team. Who's social and who's going to hold himself aloof. Who's a friend that can be trusted and who's not.

It doesn't matter if she heard: (2) still applies.

AND THIS THREAD PROVES IT.

Ok, I really am going now.

Aren't you in law school, leblanc? Why are you writing all these papers? Law school is supposed to be about one end-of-term exam, in. out. done. Then go drinking. Don't tell me they've changed the formula since I graduated?

What's (2)? Your lack of reading skills? Couldn't agree more.

Who's a friend that can be trusted and who's not.

I dunno, IDP. Like I said, they no longer address these comments to me, because of whatever signals I've managed to send. So I don't get the rowdy boy talk, but we still chat about other stuff and it's all good, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm going now too. Brock, there are still a lot of classes like that. Then there are seminar classes. I tend to take them, because they're basically bullshit (incidentally, it's a better way to learn for me, because I really like doing original research rather than rote bullshit). The good part is, class is much more fun and interesting. The bad part is they assign papers instead of finals. This semester I had two exams and two papers. The exams were awesome. The papers are killing me. Maybe I would have learned this by now, but apparently not.

And I'm off.

MY (2). In 29. Memememememe, Ogged, how could you forget?

if you knew that whenever you're wearing a swimsuit, you're being constantly evaluated, you'd feel kinda uncomfortable about it

1. There is no world in which men wearing racing swimsuits are not at least a little aware of their visibility.

2. But not all of them are uncomfortable. I gesture with unforgivable generalization at the whole male beachgoing population of Southern Europe, and refute you thus.

Exactly! Because men don't get ogled the way women do. You're only proving my point.

men don't get ogled the way women do

I believe you to be high mistaken.

As a class, it's true. You'll have a point when there's a highly profitable restaurant chain called "units."

What works for me is just to never talk to anybody. I am in the park daily, ogling discreetly, with calculatedly embarrassed sideglances. I am just so obviously ashamed of treating women as sex objects that their response is to be flattered and forgiving. Heh-heh.

Should conversation look imminent, I interpose my 150lbs of very cute, sweet friendly dogs. They strain to be petted and sniff for hidden french fries, and I hold them back at a distance of 12 feet of leash. Such consideration for a stranger's potential dogfear encourages stooping, bending and other interesting positions. Meanwhile I am moving past the encounter, so shy, and managing to get behind the subject just a little.

The sunglasses help, and being short means I always seem to be looking up at women's faces. The saltandpepper ponytail and beard; the gimme cap, pot-belly, and shorts;beltbottle and cellphone...prosperous, harmless, unthreatening.

Are there other men in parks and public places? Should this have been a G Washington?

You'll have a point when there's a highly profitable restaurant chain called "units."

Being ogled ≠ being sold.

I'm constantly checking out women. Once at U of C I accidentally made eye contact with a younger-looking woman, and she smiled at me, seemed almost grateful for the attention. My first thought was, "Wow, she must be from Iowa or something. She needs to get with the program."

"Exactly! Because men don't get ogled the way women do. You're only proving my point."

but the difference is in the reaction, not how the looking is done.

51: They're not being sold, which is why it's a wholesome restaurant rather than pr0n.

They're not being sold

What are you buying, the buffalo wings or the opportunity to eat buffalo wings while looking at busty women? If the former, you'd be more price-sensitive and would go elsewhere.

The latter. Looking = ogling.

The thing is, I hear they're not all busty. But they are all scantily clad, which is almost as good.

I still think we should hold the LA meetup at Hooters so that DE, LeBlanc and I can all take off our shirts.

Look, can I short circuit this? You wear a swimsuit when you have a fit body and people are going to check you out. Fact of life, everyone knows it, lots of people enjoy it. I think Tim's clearly right: you can comment, but discreetly, and not crudely, and not so that the person you're commenting about can hear.

You can't short-circuit it, no. That said, nothing you've said disagrees with me. Crude comments should get the hairy eyeball. There's no other way to maintain order and keep the Muslamic immigrants from swamping our public pools.

What, ogged? What if I want to wear a swimsuit and not be checked out? What if I'd prefer not to have dudes saying "did you see the tits on that chick?" just because I want to go for a swim? Shall I wear a tshirt and jeans instead?

It doesn't matter if you have a fit body or not. People are appraising you all the time, for good or for ill. And that sucks. And they should keep it to themselves, goddamnit.

I meant short-circuiting the "who gets ogled more" thing. Gah. No one is in favor of crude comments, B.

60: Oh, ok.

What if I want to wear a swimsuit and not be checked out?

Move to Mars?

In light of 61, scratch 62.

You at least should know that women are from Venus, ogged, and I should go back where I came from.

I'm in favor of crude comments, but only if they're funny and directed at ME.

The women around here are a lot more warmongery than the men.

No one is in favor of crude comments, B.

But if not for crude comments, what would you blog about?

I have never eaten at Hooters. Nor have I ever made a crude remark. I am a saint among men.

Does it get me laid? NOT LATELY.

That's because we're sick of your shit and aren't going to take it any more.

Also because you boys like it.

Crude thoughts, probably.

69 to 66. Though it works for 68, too.

Before she swamps the resources with her swimsuits. Back to Venus!

Thesis, because we need a good argument to keep us warm a cold night: Admiring glances are less annoying at a gym than in the rest of life.

I maintain, B, that it's impossible for you to parody yourself. More precisely, I maintain that it's impossible for anyone to discern that that's what you're doing without your assurance that you're doing so.

Admiring glances are always fine. It's the obnoxious glances and asshole comments that suck.

m. leblanc--

I hear you about the impossibility of cutting yourself off from the web while doing legal research. And you almost have to do it as you go (at least, some of it.)

I find that talking about my paper is less unpleasant than, but may eventually lead to, writing it. What's your paper on?

My 3L paper was the most rewarding part of law school, but individual seminar papers suck.

73: So much for the sanctity of off-blog communication.

I confess I never find admiring glances annoying, while I always find comments bizarre (I know I've mentioned this before here, but I'm too lazy to look it up) if not disturbing. I'm pretty sure that involving a third party ups the creep factor.

All comments are bizarre? Stuff like "nice suit" or "hey, baby, I'd take you to the opera any time"?

If they come from someone I don't know, yes.

Also to 73, I can't help it if you're humorless, Ogged.

I take it back. "Nice suit" is fine, even in passing on a crowded sidewalk.

73: So much for the sanctity of off-blog communication.

I was responding to 69.

I watch minor-league stock car racing on tv, brought to you by Hooters. So I've seen a lot of ads, although no one I know has ever gone there. It looks awful, but food usually looks inedible on my tv. The girls, and I use the word advisedly because they always seem very young, are often fairly slender and modestly-endowed, as was suggested above. Taking me there would like to peeing on a Koran and looping Christiana A in my cell to me. I'd confess to planning 911 in Renfrew, Ontario to make it stop.

82: I don't believe I said anything in 69 about parody.

fairly slender and modestly-endowed

I'm confident this varies with the market. The Bucs' coach, Jon Gruden, is famous for having strategy sessions at Hooters. (This was more appealing back when we thought he had a strategy.) The depictions were not as you describe them.

C'mon, slol. Admit it: if someone passed you on the sidewalk and said "hey baby, I'd take you to the opera any time" you'd be amused.

How would you feel about "lookin' dapper", slol?

84: irrelevant.

if someone passed you on the sidewalk and said "hey baby

I would probably want to be amused, but would fail. I'm really incredibly uptight.

"dapper" always makes me think of Martin Van Buren.

I was just trying to help Cala get the ball rolling; I didn't want this to be about me.

82: I don't believe I said anything in 69 about parody.

B, you big doofus, if I had wanted to allude to off-blog communications, I would have said "I still maintain," but a perceptive reader could have gathered from my 73 that your 69 might have been intended as self-parody--no reference to off-blog communication necessary. But who brought up the off-blog communication in order to score cheap points and undermine my moral unassailability? You did, you big doofus.

75: Hi, Katherine! Well, it's about congressional redistricting. Don't want to get too specific, because my research is responding to part of a book my professor wrote and if I say what then it will give away which school I'm at, which I don't know why I really care since everyone here knows anyway. But. There's a "conversational" theory of American Democracy, that many of the puzzles of our political system are actually designed to increase conversation between the governing bodies and the governed. For example, the two houses of Congress are a great conversational engine. Voting is how we respond to those that govern us.

There are a few examples in the book where he tries to make a certain feature of democracy fit into this conversational engine through some kind argumentative fiat, but there's one glaring eyesore on this theory: the recent popularity, particularly with the Supreme Court's approval, of redistricting for political gain, continually reducing the number of districts that are competitive. Non-competitive districts are inherently non-conversational. When the race is a lock either way, candidates have no reason to engage their constituents in discussion about issues, the RNCC or whoever has no reason to spend money on that district, etc. Voter turnout is always lower in those districts, which means the governed portion of the conversation isn't talking back.

So, I'm trying to reconcile the conversational theory with gerrymandering. I don't really know where I'm going to take it yet: obviously, a proposal for closer districts and independent commissions is waiting at the end, but I feel like there's a lot of mumbo-jumbo in the middle that I don't really know what it's going to be about.

I should say that this conversational theory is supposed to be descriptive rather than normative, but I'm making it normative just because I think our government works, and it's a fine theory apart from its descriptiveness to shape political theory.

So, you're write, that was kinda fun.

if I had wanted to allude to off-blog communications,

Intent is irrelevant.

Therefore, it doesn't matter if I brought it up *in order to* undermine your moral authority. The point is, I did so, and I'll hear NO MORE FROM YOU about off-blog sanctity, thankyouverymuch.

You're write? What the fuck?

93 made me giggle. LeBlanc, you need to finish this paper and then take a nap, lady.

I'll let people read 92 and make up their own minds.

As for comments, I never enjoy them when they happen, though they might give me a slight smile in retrospect.

Ogged is right. If you hadn't mentioned off-blog communiqués, no one would have had any cause to think that's what you were talking about.

Something similar happened when you alluded to Abelard and Heloise (I think) and thought that that gave away your discipline, or something—whereas if you hadn't mentioned that it was related to your discipline, no one would have guessed it.

This comment and the above were posted from Lynx, so McManlyPants has no excuse anymore.

I don't mind comments if they're good-natured and non-threatening. A couple months ago, I came out of a train station just as the bus I wanted was pulling away, and I waved frantically and half-ran toward it, but the bus driver just ignored me, and I raised my palms up in confusion, and exclaimed "motherfucker!" Another bus driver was standing nearby and he shook his head and said "that's not right. You're too cute to leave behind." That made me smile.

Oh fuck off, Ben. Like you don't violate off-blog communication all the time. If Mr. Ogged hadn't explained what the fuck he was talking about, no one would have known why he was referring to parody at all.

95, 96: Oh, come on. "Maintain" implies a prior communication.

100: no it doesn't.

Specifically, "maintain" can be used to introduce a position.

It can, but that is not its most common usage.

The point is, it did violate off-blog communication, and Ogged knows that perfectly well even if he's trying to weasel out of it. I don't think the times I've violated obc and gotten scolded for it were times *I* said "as Ogged said in email...," so your implied contention that if something can possibly be understood as not referencing obc, then it doesn't, is obviously and completely unsupported by precedent.

Not to mention that "if X can possibly by some stretch of the imagination mean Y, then it *does* mean Y" is a stupid argument.

I still don't know what you're all talking about.

Ogged fucked up, and Ben's his little bitch, is the upshot.

Fortunately I don't think anyone was peddling that argument.

Does that make me your little bitch? Probably, and I'm ok with that.

No, it makes you my comrade in arms. Let's kick Ogged's and Ben's skinny asses.

100: And ogged and B never communicate in comments?

Not about that, we didn't.

Aha -- see, I still have to check my comment crossreference database to be certain of what y'all have talked about, not like you veterans.

Is the question here whether the majority (or some appreciable subset) of the audience would have read 73 as referring to an off-blog communication if there were no subsequent comments mentioning that it was? Or it is enough the B knows it refers to an off blog communication?

I've brazenly violated this rule about off-blog communication countless times, and no one's ever called me on it.

not like you veterans.

I still don't know what they're talking about. I just assumed it couldn't possibly be interesting.

So I'm going up the stairs out of the subway and I see a woman ahead of me wearing boots, and since she's ahead of me, the boots are at eye level, and they're really pretty awesome, with a high, narrow heel that is smoothly blended into the sole rather than being separate, and there are little straps and buckles at the top, and, frankly, they're sexy, and while she's got a coat on and I can't evaluate her bottom, from my present angle she looks pretty good.

Q1. Is it appropriate for me to say "nice boots" on my way out the fare gate?

Q2. Is it appropriate for me to say "niiiiice boots" with a bit of a leer in my voice?

Oh for god's sake, I don't actually care, except that it's nice to catch Ogged violating his own rule for once. Even if he won't admit it.

83- you've never known anyone who went to Hooters? WTF?

And B, I'm pretty certain no one would have even considered the possibility of off-blog communcation (had they not been privy to that communication), had you not brought it up. I sure as hell didn't.

Oh for god's sake, I don't actually care, except that it's nice to catch Ogged violating his own rule for once.

You just told me via telegram that you care deeply.

I'm pretty certain no one would care. And therefore no one would bother noticing. I'm not the one with the weird hangup about it.

Oh, whoops.

I'm being Swift Boated.

Lalala, 119 doesn't bother me at all!

See?

122: That's what you get for removing your own kidney to get a Purple Heart.

::Poke, poke.:: Get on that boat, you foreigner.

124 is good.

Proving that inappropriate comments are worth it if they're funny.

Has B been engaged in self-parody since comment 73?

To know that, someone would have to violate the sanctity of off-blog comments.

I think.

Maybe.

127: Since *19*73 actually.

I don't understand 21. Does "thunder box" mean something other than a toilet?

42 - Aren't you in law school, leblanc? Why are you writing all these papers? Law school is supposed to be about one end-of-term exam, in. out. done. Then go drinking. Don't tell me they've changed the formula since I graduated?

Sadly, things have. I'm writing my ConLaw "final" right now, which is just a big paper. Due tomorrow. In fact, I only had one real exam, and even that included a take-home essay portion due on exam day. I would tortfease to have only good old fashioned in-class tests.

Intent is irrelevant.

No, it isn't, really. Not everything is literary criticism.

And how did we know it came from an e-mail without you saying so? It was somewhat of a non-sequitur, sure, but so is half the blog.

I'm pretty sure the "intent is irrelevant" line was meant as self-parody.

But maybe this is just more evidence for the point in 73.

I'm pretty sure

You should maintain it.

Okay, I'm an asshole. I'll ban myself.

132: Are you implying that I'm a giraffe?

Elephant.

So now even the hedgehogs are going to law school? I've got to get my application in.

Dude. When he said "unit" he meant her massively hairy back. Duh.

I have always tended to be oblivious to flirtations and have sometimes had to be told what was going on. Once, however, I was walking across campus with my friend Marcus when a smokin' hott dude on a bicycle rode by at high speed; as Bike Guy passed, he reached out and slapped me firmly on the ass. He looked back to see my reaction and realized I was not the friend whose buttock he meant to so confidently clasp and gasped in surprise. He made a quick, laughing apology even as he disappeared from view. All this took, what, five seconds? Seven?

I stopped and cupped my hands around my mouth and yelled, "Come back!" I happily confess that I spent a while walking the same way at the same time every day, just in case.

(Also, w-lfs-n is awesome for lynxifying the comments.)

You're surely not at work?

No, I'm making sure it works.

RMMP isn't the only one using lynx/links to check comments. w3m does a better job of displaying them though.

It would be the work of a moment to add links and w3m commenting support; you just have to tell me what user agents they report (I'm not going to go out of my way to find out for myself, you see).

I miss the geek-fraternity days of yore.