By the way, what is the right name for the title that shows up in the web-page's tab? When I wanted to refer to it, I realized I didn't know.
The headline is really strange. I saw it yesterday, assumed it was about a designer who designed clothes in some way that was particularly convenient or comfortable for his models, and passed it by. However, I can see it being in the Style section because it is about the fashion industry, and that is where it is covered. At least it is not this weeks Modern Love column.
I could almost see an investigative piece about risks of sexual assault to models generally being in the Style section; that would be about the fashion industry. A story about an accused rapist and his victims, though, really seems as if it should either be news or not news -- it's not about the fashion industry, it's about this guy.
it's not about the fashion industry, it's about this guy
Well yes and no. His defense seems to be the casting couch defense. The women slept with him willingly (more or less) because they wanted to get modeling jobs (not sure how this gets him out of the statutory rape charges). Or, of course, less charitably, here is an egregious example of how powerful people in the modeling exploit vulnerable would-be models.
Really, guys, no jury will believe that a guy who looks like this could ever be a rapist.
Notice how the lawyer played the race (Gandhi) card.
What on earth is a story about a designer who's been accused of rape by a number of models, some underage, doing in the Style Section?
When an athlete is accused of a crime, isn't the article usually in the Sports section?
It's interesting/disheartening to see that the standard media defense for people accused of rape hasn't changed at all.
You can't really fault a guy if women throw themselves at him.
Because rape is in fashion again, after a long period of killjoy PC Puritanism? Rape is the new [something]. After all, these women make their living off their yayas and goodies.
My first thought (reading the post -- haven't read the story) was that the implication of heterosexuality on the part of a designer made this a man bites dog story. This isn't the most enlightened thought even held . . .
5: I'll bet he tries to get out of the stat. rape charges by contending all models look much younger than they are and he had no reason to believe he was dealing with jail-bait.
(The headline is goofy but I don't see what's so strange about it appearing in Style. That's the place for bold-faced names to be included in the comprehensive up-against-the-wall list, right?)
12: No way, Ogged could never swim in that hair.
he had no reason to believe he was dealing with jail-bait.
This is outside my area of expertise (I am happy to say) but I think that in most (maybe all) jurisdictions, this is no defense. Statutory rape is, I am pretty sure, one of those crimes where there is no intent requirement for an important element (the age of the under-age party).
16: I found this:
Mistake of Fact
Although statutory rape was historically a strict-liability crime, California now recognizes a defense where the perpetrator "participates in a mutual act of sexual intercourse, believing his partner to be beyond the age of consent, with reasonable grounds for such belief." People v. Hernandez, 39 Cal. Rptr. 361, 364 (1964). This acceptance coincided with the raising of the age of consent. Accordingly, the crime of committing lewd or lascivious acts with a child under the age of 14, Cal. Pen. Code ยง 288(a), remains a strict-liability offense.
at a criminal defense firm's site:
http://www.criminalattorney.com/pages/firm_articles_statutory_rape_california.htm
Meanwhile, is anyone else a bit bothered by all those shadowy conspiracies going after celebrities and wannabees? Being rich and famous requires courage.
Semi-relatedly, discussion this morning with rfts about Tom Friedman's Big Stupid Magazine Cover Story has led to the conclusion that Friedman is the Jackie Harvey of international affairs.
To some he is a garden variety arriviste, an overeager cad, who crossed the line into criminal territory when his sense of entitlement overwhelmed his good sense. To others he is a struggling design talent, who played by the same elastic set of rules that govern everything else in the celebrity world and fashion industry -- except he was caught.
Distinction? Difference?
and what on earth is his lawyer doing suggesting that he can't be expected to turn down predatory fourteen year olds?
Ogged could never swim in that hair
Duh. Ogged swims in a pool.
Might I throw out there that, if a guy is famous, reasonably good-looking, and powerful in your industry, any consensual sex with him would be something one would brag about? There's no incentive to claiming a guy like this raped you, especially in an industry where everyone will accuse you of doing it to get ahead or being naive about your job, which is selling your body. Therefore, I conclude that he is probably very guilty.
And besides, in the stat. rape cases, can there be any defense other than "I didn't touch her?" I thought "I didn't know she was 13" was not valid in court.
"Why would she change into pajamas?" asked Mr. Richards, Mr. Jon's lawyer.
What? Changing into pajamas is the universal sign that I am not going to have sex with you. Yoga pants and a T-shirt means "We're just friends tonight."
I don't get the impression that he's actually powerful in the fashion industry in the slightest. He's a skanky, tiny poser who presents profoundly uninspiring designs consisting of silk skirts with muscle tees.
Yeah, but he's got clout in a way that 15-year-olds on Myspace would recognize as clout.
Ogged's message with the hair is "I don't need to cut me hair to beat you". (Costly signaling.) Of course, he races mostly with 70-year-olds.
TWB is complicated. Step One: Look ready to kill her. Step Two: say something sort of cool instead. Step Three: Decide whether what she's wearing counts as pajamas. (If possible, destroy all nearby pajamas during Step One or Two).
I'm sure that there are many more steps, culminating with the stickleback staple, #17, "Stand on your head and waggle your butt".
Yoga pants and a T-shirt means "We're just friends tonight."
I wish someone had told me this earlier.
12: What about the defense that you didn't sleep with her because she was 13? (I kind of need a fast answer on this.)
The nice thing about 14 year olds is that a guy with a car and an apartment is rich, and McDonalds or KFC is a date.
28: That's why it sucks not having a car.
I think the pajamas thing is fairly universal. If you're trying to get laid, you don't put clothes on.
What bothers me about a lot of discussions of rape is that the accused almost always says that her signals were hard to read, and you can't blame a guy for trying, etc. But when you're already in a private, vulnerable situation, her giving all these crazy, nebulous female signs like "I don't want to have sex with you" is really all the no anyone needs. Has he never been with a willing partner? Willing partners are pretty clear about their intent.
I don't know what the law considers sufficiently coercive to count as rape, but the dude is certainly guilty of something. What utter sleaze.
Perhaps he failed on step #1, "Seem enraged".
32: Rage is not the turn-on, actually, John; it's the cold, steady stare of someone you can imagine pulling a trigger. My ex Max had the face of an Army general who'd taken up Buddhism. One guy I slept with turned up a few months later in special ops with the FBI. That weird inner stillness is mystifying to me.
I wonder what he'd say if you asked him if he's a feminist.
On the "How could I have known what kind of signals she was sending front", I figure any man not actually brain damaged gets, at the very, very most, one horrible tragic mistake. At the absolute outside limit, the first time someone went to the police over what he claimed was consensual sex, he needed to become very, very cautious (like, looking for indications of enthusiasm, maybe, here's a crazy idea, talking with prospective partners about whether they want to have sex with him?) Anyone this kind of crap happens twice to is a rapist.
But in any case, nothing could possibly excuse the headline.
This guy reminds me somewhat of the hairdresser I had when I first moved to NYC. He got into the business because he was really into women. He said he loved his job because he could tell gorgeous women how beautiful they were every day and it wasn't harassment. He was extremely flattering. I fell for it, briefly, but I got out of it as soon as I could. I got the sense that he wasn't used to being told no.
The thousand yard stare? Mmm, this is not necessarily a completely harmless fetish. Perhaps you could switch to furries.
18 -- score another hit against the sanctity of off-blog communications. I started reading that article without seeing the author's name and about a paragraph in was just overwhelmed by a creeping miasma of lameness.
If you're trying to get laid, you don't put clothes on.
Is there an exception for provocative lingerie?
Yoga pants are "clothes." See-through panties are not "clothes."
38: The thousand-yard stare is different. AWB is, I think, referring to the human equivalent of the body language of cats of all sizes, and especially the "I'm thinking that just might be prey over there" mode.
42: Is there something between the two?
What if it's "I think I see prey over there -- in yoga pants."
30/41: Women of my acquaintance who are prone to feeling cold in any month except August would disagree with that; they're always going to put pajamas on, and their partners are prohibited from interpreting that as sexual disinterest.
I know that I was going over to a woman's apartment over the course of several weeks, eventually leading to sex, but I can't remember whether she was wearing yoga pants on the nights when we actually did have sex.
Are those things actually comfortable, by the way?
You're talking about relationships, not ambiguously sexual situations.
There's such a thing as an ambiguously sexual relationship.
Yeah, I was just going to say that pajamas might not be a universal code. There are all kinds of dating subcultures and idiosyncracies, and pajamas might be interpreted differently bt different people.
There's such a thing as an ambiguously sexual relationship.
There is. And it might be entertaining to replay the whole male fear of accusations of date rape discussion, but really, whatever went on, and whether it met the technical definition of rape in any or all circumstances, (1) 31 gets it right and (2) this is not about relationships.
Even in ambiguously sexual situations, "willing partners" often feel embarrassed or silly about being too forward or too clear in their intent, particularly the younger they are.
In the past I've interpreted the putting on of pajamas as a sign that says "I am comfortable with you and therefore I am likely to go to bed soon, perhaps with you. I am also taking off my clothes with you in the house, and putting on other clothes which will be more easy to take off if intimacy begins to occur." In other words, as signalling willingness. The signal of non-willingness would be keeping the original clothes on. Not everyone is as forward as AWB, or as impervious to cold.
The only time someone has started getting unclothed in a previously "ambiguously sexual" situation it was a girl who was more or less completely neutral as to whether sex occurred, had no expectation of enjoying it, but figured that she would be returning me a favor by allowing me to have sex with her. This was not very alluring.
I was talking about LB's dismissal in 48 of Kotsko's 47, not about the dude the article's about.
There's that Chappelle Show piece about the white family and the black family who swap dads (both played by Chappelle) for a TV show, and the white father makes a point of keeping his pajamas on while having sex with the black mom.
Yes, there's no controversy over whether Anand Jon is a predatory douchebag. 35 gets it right.
On a related note, I am assuming that "yoga pants" is a euphemism for "sweatpants".
Finally, I should make it clear that the woman in 52.2 was an unmedicated bipolar type and therefore her unpredictable, seemingly awesome actions were more likely to inspire nervousness than enthusiasm in other people.
43: John has it right, only I think the pros think in meters and "klicks" now, so that would be about a 546.806649168853893 yard stare.
55 - Yoga pants are tighter and more flattering than sweatpants. But they are still code for "relaxing around the house".
I'd actually kind of agree with the "Changing into pyjamas isn't an unambiguous no", but it's a no-ish enough sort of signal to require an affirmative yes or expression of enthusiam to override it. And it really doesn't go with the 'casting couch' defense: "I couldn't help it, your Honor, these insatiable women were changing into t-shirts and sweatpants. What's a man supposed to do?" That's not a "I'll do anything to get my modelling career started, Mr. Jon," </sexy purr> story.
I just wanted to point out that AWB is generalizing from herself too much in 23/30. But her sins, of course, pale by comparison with Anand Jon's. Whether or not he is Bangladeshi.
"I'll do anything", of course, would also not be a defense.
As I recall, the yoga pants lady did give an unambiguous "no", so the pajamas argument is peripheral.
Actually, I think overreadiness to generalize from oneself might be worse than rape.
Sure, if you're the US president it is.
"overreadiness to generalize oneself" sounds like a rape defense.
She put on pajamas, which in my experience always means
.yes
, yerroner
"I knew I wanted to have sex with her, so it seemed like a safe assumption that she'd feel the same."
I think you're on to something with 67.
67: but if you're generalizing from yourself properly, the "feel the same" there would be: she wants to have sex with herself.
she wants to have sex with herself
"And I figured I'd stick around to give her a helping hand, yerronor."
I think there may be ambiguity on the pajamas thing -- it might signify differently in a "dating" culture or an "informal hookup" culture. As someone who can't afford to formally "date" and who generally moves in circles with women in similar situations, I could read pajamas as a signal of "I'm not going anywhere for a while" or "I'm comfortable around you."
But you couldn't possibly read it as "No further discussion is necessary -- fuck me now." Suddenly getting naked could plausibly be read to mean "Fuck me now", to the point that if that wasn't the intended meaning, the man involved could justifiably be a little confused. (Not to the point of ignoring a clear subsequent 'no', of course, but to the point where a clear 'no' might reasonably be necessary to straighten matters out.) Appearing in sexy lingerie? Similar.
Getting into a t-shirt and sweatpants doesn't make any sense as a signal stronger than "Cuddling might possibly happen, and we'll see where we go from there."
"Yerroner, she put on yoga pants, so I was trying to put on her yoga pants too."
("If she touches her nose, you touch your (
52:
"I am also taking off my clothes with you in the house, and putting on other clothes which will be more easy to take off if intimacy begins to occur." In other words, as signalling willingness. The signal of non-willingness would be keeping the original clothes on.
This.
Changing clothes with another in the house is a sign of comfort and intimacy, whether of a sexual variety or not.
The nature of the clothing is not particularly important, though I will say that since I don't wear pajamas except in very rare circumstances, putting some on (probably flannel) would indeed signal something. I imagine changing into the grungiest, baggiest sweats one owns would also signal something.
I understand AWB's steely stare fascination.
Dang, I don't know what html code I unwittingly stumbled upon there. It was an arrow pointing to the word "your". I was trying to quote Life in Hell,
"If she touches her nose, you touch your (left-arrow important!) nose. This shows that you're all in sync with the universe or something."
Even getting naked doesn't necessarily mean anything more than "I'm a naturist".
I would say that the pajamas thing might signal more strongly in the "hook-up" culture than in dating since the former is less strongly biased toward raw sex appeal -- sex isn't some kind of endgame in a contrived seduction scenario. If I was just "hanging out" (with some hint of sexual possibilities) at a woman's house, I'd be a little taken aback if she put on sexy lingerie -- it would seem really out of context.
76: Heh, in some circles, true. And here's my steely stare indicating that I'm on another planet, surveying yours, and don't even try to figure out why I'm half-clothed. I just went swimming nekkid, okay? Do you play guitar?
Obviously a standardized code needs to be developed and taught in the schools. Once it was fully disseminated it could be recognized by the legal system.
"Your Honor, everyone who went to ninth grade knows...."
My thoughts on this: there is no such thing as pajama consent, and even if she is a hot fourteen year old, your dick will not fall off if you pause to get verbal consent, and if you're trying to hire her, don't you know her age?
From the Times' T:Style Magazine, a piece on a supposed new craze for commissioning nude portraits of oneself in late pregnancy: "When they're not blogging incessantly about their expanding bump on MommyBuzz.com, they're exposing it for all the world to see. The bovinely pregnant are now demanding the full Demi Moore treatment, in what is quickly becoming a seventh-month rite of passage." Say, fuck you!
77, 79: I can feel myself getting humorless here, and of course no one actually posting in this thread misunderstands this. But. No, we don't need to teach an unambiguous system of 'signals' to anyone in ninth grade, and no, having confused 'changing into pyjamas' with 'consent to intercourse' isn't any kind of valid excuse for forcing unwanted sex on someone, whatever your culture.
Repeatedly spelling it "pyjamas" has got to constitute consent to having some punishment visited upon you.
That's quite enough British-bashing, Mr. Noah Webster Jr.
Whoops. Not an intended Britishism, just bad spelling.
As a sexual particularist, I hold that pajamas or yoga pants have no fixed valence.
82: Just so you know, my idea of a signal for consent to sex is a literal consent to sex. Even if the woman sits on the couch, tantalizingly, in sweatpants and an old t-shirt.
It's complicated, though, when a woman wears yoga pants that have "Yes I want to have sex" written on the ass.
The phrase "bovinely pregnant" totally enrages me, too.
"piece on a supposed new craze for commissioning nude portraits of oneself in late pregnancy: "
Done correctly, those can be amazing, tasteful portraits.
Done incorrectly, she looks like trailer trash.
I have an ex who is an amazing black and white photographer.
What about crotchless yoga pants? Could be a sexual prop, could just be that the seam split.
Sure—"bovinely pregnant" enrages. But if someone likened you to ox-eyed Hera, it would be a compliment. Fickle! Fickle! Fickle!
"What about crotchless yoga pants? Could be a sexual prop, could just be that the seam split."
Is this related to the pregnant thread?
Or how come:
"trailor trash" = insult.
"the trash that launched a thousand trailors" = compliment.
Crazy wimmen!
No, we don't need to teach an unambiguous system of 'signals' to anyone in ninth grade, and no, having confused 'changing into pyjamas' with 'consent to intercourse' isn't any kind of valid excuse for forcing unwanted sex on someone, whatever your culture.
I think you have the analysis wrong here.
Imagine the following counter-scenario. A young woman flies down to LA at sleazy-guy's expense, knowing that the plan is for her to spend the night in his apartment. When she gets there, she changes into a t-shirt and yoga pants and parks herself on his bed. She says nothing. Cuddling, kissing and intercourse ensue.
The next day, she claims she was raped because she did not actually consent (even though she did not voice any refusal and participated without dissent). Most people, I would suggest, would say that the circumstances were such that an unexpressed--whether by word or deed--lack of consent is not sufficient to make this rape. When you agree to spend the night at a guys apartment in his bedroom, unless you say otherwise, it is not unreasonable to think that the sex was consensual absent some other evidence of lack of consent.
What makes all the difference was that she claims to have said no. At that point, even if she was naked and had spent the last hour making out with the guy, it's rape if he goes further. That is the problem here, not the signals sent or not sent by yoga pants.
And yes, in 9th grade, kids should be taught that particular signal.
Oh Heebie of the Park. Her ass launched a thousand posts.
. That is the problem here, not the signals sent or not sent by yoga pants.
And yes, in 9th grade, kids should be taught that particular signal.
The yoga pant signal? Which signal? Signals are hard, and the worst group to be teaching signals to teenagers are their parents because their parents aren't currently dating other teenagers. E.g., calaparents trying to determine what is 'goth' or that whole scandal about blowjobs which seems to exist mostly in the minds of Law and Order producers.
Best, I think, that instruction should focus on the unambiguous stuff: no means no, your dick won't fall off if you don't get laid, and if you're not sure, stop because your dick really won't fall off, and girls like sex, so she'll let you know if you shouldn't be stopping.
Experience will help them get the signals right much better than their parents trying to say that yoga pants and cuddling on the bed probably mean it's consensual, except when it's not.
Which signal?
No means no, no matter what she is wearing. Sorry to be unclear.
The entire talk of signals cued by wardrobe is misguided. I'm reminded by the mention some time back of dangly earrings signalling availability.
I was bemused by that talk earlier in this thread. Thought: y'all are all over the place. Pajamas, what?
Clothed, unclothed, steely- or sleepy-eyed, there are no rules to be adduced about these things.
Wait. How about shorts that say "juicy" and an Unfogged t-shirt?
What is that message?
"My boyfriend mugged this weird kid with glasses and all I got was this stupid t-shirt."
"I thought it'd be ironic to wear Dad's t-shirt now that I live in a dorm."
The entire talk of signals indicates that IMX nothing has changed since the mid-fifties, and a whole new approach is needed. How about fluorescent paddles with "Fuck Me" on one side and "Go Around Again" on the other, modeled after the ones used on aircraft carriers?
Wait, there are Unfogged t-shirts now?
Why wasn't I informed?
103: That guy in the foreground of that photo is definitely asking for sex. I mean, just look at what he's wearing.
Correction: Young women older than the age of consent like sex, and if they want some you'll be able to tell.
Paddles? That is brilliant.
I think I heard something about fingernail polish. Green polish means that they are willing to go all the way!
Black nail polish means BACK THE F-OFF!
Bio:
of course, that gives the phrase "land that plane" a whole nother meaning.
103: not paddles to signify sexual consent or otherwise. Naval signal flags.
Possibilities include:
B - I am carrying dangerous goods
D - I am manoeuvring with difficulty
H - I have a pilot on board
L - Stop; I have something important to communicate to you
Q - This vessel is free of infectious disease
T - I am engaged in trawling
U - You are standing into danger
X - Stop carrying out your intentions and watch for my signals
Ah, yes, "X". That's the only one you need.
What is the signal for "Come back in 45 minutes after this pilot has taken off"?
OK, so it's settled, changing into, out of, or through pajamas carries no specific message whatsoever about sex. Unless they're footie pajamas, in which case it carries the message "are you really, really that creepy?"
Represented with Navy Flags, this message looks like Mickey Mouse ears.
Young women should also be aware that "love" and "hate" knuckle tattoos, however timeless their appeal, convey mixed messages.
the worst group to be teaching signals to teenagers are their parents because their parents aren't currently dating other teenagers. E.g., calaparents
They're really going to enjoy it when you go to college, Cala.
109: Let's not forget J - On fire, have dangerous cargo
G - Your nose is too low. Pull up.
I think that's for use rather later in the evening, apo.
34: He'd laugh and say, "one of those fat, humorless bitches?"
OMG, he IS Ogged.
After scanning the 157-page PDF, it looks like very few of them would actually send an encouraging signal to a prospective partner.
C = Yes.
QG = You should go ahead.
BB = You may alight on my deck.
BB1 = You may alight on my deck; I am ready to receive you forward.
BB2 = You may alight on my deck; I am ready to receive you amidship.
BB3 = You may alight on my deck; I am ready to receive you aft.
BM = You should parachute object to windward.
FO = I will keep close to you.
FO1 = I will keep close to you during the night.
IN = I require a diver.
CB6 = I request immediate assistance; I am on fire.
JN = You should beach the vessel in...(followed by coordinates)
LI1 = Increase speed.
LX = The canal is clear.
LX2 = You can enter the canal at time indicated.
PR1 = You should come as near as possible.
RI = There is good holding ground in my area.
UP = Permission to enter harbor is urgently requested. I have an emergency case.
MAB = I request you to make rendezvous in position indicated.
US6 = Nothing can be done until tugs have arrived.
TN = In what direction, distance and depth does your fishing gear extend?
As far as the original signals discussion, I think guys are really more worried about missing a "yes" signal than they are about missing a "no" signal. AWB's interpretation might lead to the former problem.
That really isn't relevant to the daterape story here at all, where there were unambiguous signals. It specifically references the TWB pajama code.
Unless they're footie pajamas, in which case it carries the message "are you really, really that creepy?"
Mr. B. kinda digs my fuzzy footie pajamas.
95: Sure, kids should know that no means no by ninth grade. Or, actually, by the time they're old enough to talk. The issue here, though, is what should *adults* be taught? I submit that the answer is they should be taught that little girls behaving as if they're at a slumber party /= an invitation.
YZ = The words which follow are in plain language
122: So you want to tell me there's nothing creepy about it?
OMG, thanks for that site! Mine look like the second pair, the one the guy is wearing. B/c I bought them in the Target boys' department.
121 seems right, particularly the part about how the discussion of signals no longer really has anything to do with the rape story.
121: Honest to god, the answer here is to say, cutely, "are we flirting?" Or, as a very hot redheaded pathologist once said to me, "I'm a little drunk, but I'm pretty sure I'm picking up some major chemistry here."
126: Dude, the ugliness of that pattern is irrelevant to the inherent qualities of footie pajamas.
Okay, I was wrong: footie pajamas can send the message I never want to have sex again in my life.
130: I am guffawing, really. That pair, and that pose? Admitted.
129: It's the combination of the rubber ducks and the ass-flap that got me.
128: So what you mean is "ZA 1".
130: Those pajamas send the message "PK".
This signal flag stuff is a ton of fun, I might post all my comments in it from now on.
134.2: Them's fighting words, my friend.
Okay, the freakiest thing yet: from the description on the Poker-jammies-for-dudes page: "One of our hottest sellers!!!"
133: How is this not creepy on some level?
136: What, you never need to take a dump?
128: That would be a variety of the "make the subtext explicit" option, which does seem to be the best choice in most such situations but which people also seem oddly reluctant to go for. I suspect this is because it removes all possible ambiguity, which can be comforting if one is unsure enough about interpreting signals and concerned enough about avoiding embarrassment to worry about this in the first place.
95 and 121 both seem perfectly reasonable -- my only point with regard to the changing-into-yoga-pants bit is that, while there are nonverbal behaviors that would legitimately be quite confusing if not meant to indicate consent to sex, and which might reasonably require explicit verbal explanation to straighten everyone's expectations out, changing into yoga pants is not such a behavior.
135: I mean the signal flag message "PK". Gosh dude, RB 1.
Seriously. You change into yoga pants after a long trip because you're tired and smelly and want to be comfortable.
Christ. Here's a very easy rule for the dude's lawyer: don't fuck fourteen-year-olds.
114: I bet they'll miss me! And make my room into a shrine!
138: All I can say is, it works for me, and it worked for redheaded pathologist guy.
140: I skipped those comments. Bo-ring.
138: Plus, if you're that squirrely, what in the world are you going to do once you get your pants off?!?
The bar is not dangerous.
I will keep close to you.
You should come as near as possible.
I will keep close to you during the night.
The canal is clear.
I am going ahead.
You should go ahead.
You should go full speed ahead.
You should go slow ahead.
You should keep going ahead.
I will go ahead dead slow.
I am going ahead, follow me.
I will not follow you.
I have lost sight of you.
What is the course to reach you?
I cannot save my vessel.
I am abandoning my vessel.
I cannot steer without assistance.
(Unused: "you should not discharge oil or oily mixture.".)
I rarely need to take just a dump, with no urination involved. In fact, I will go out on a limb and say that a dump in isolation has never happened. EVER!
138: This is pretty much exactly right, and boy do people need to get over it. (Not that I myself did, back in the day). Being willing to talk about what you think is going on/want to go on explicitly is terribly useful in terms of avoiding unpleasant misunderstandings.
144: U, QH. OJ 1
149 - "146" s/b "120"
146 is surprisingly pretty.
147: The ass-flap works for both, if you're a girl. Though even sans ass-flap, there's this little trick where you unzip down to about the knee and simply pull one side around the back to the opposite hip, rather than having to yank the entire damn thing of and sit there naked and shivering.
Or you could avoid the whole thing by not wearing a damned footie pj.
That jumpinjammerz site is a ripoff. I keep hitting the "See More" links, but they never take off the damn pajamas.
Sifu Tweety thinks you're a creepy perv, apo.
154 - you could have avoided typing that laborious sentence and just said "MCM" with the flags.
All I can say is, it works for me, and it worked for redheaded pathologist guy.
I don't know about this pathologist guy, but you are obviously not nearly shy or insecure enough for this to even be a concern.
154: I hear they've invented central heating, and you're probably a big enough girl now not to kick your blankets out of your crib. Whose house is that cold, to justify an assflap?
I'm just saying, for some of us this sort of thing is easier said than done.
161: you're kinda old, so maybe not.
Hm. Google image search for "footie pajama porn," while interesting, did not supply what I'd hoped it might.
162: Not all houses have central heating, y'know.
Not that I mean to defend b and her decadent footie-pajamas.
162: "Central heating?"
We here in far-off California have no concept of such a strange invention.
Or possibly the B's have an outhouse?
B has a robot clean her floors and lives in California. She can afford the central heating she doesn't need. No footies!
162: Central heating be damned! Global warming, baby! I'm saving the earth with my footie pjs! (Also our house in Canada LACKED INSULATION IN THE BRICK WALLS and, when we took the bedroom wallpaper down to paint, we found there was a HOLE IN THE WALL behind the head of the bed. In other words, our fucking house was that fucking cold. So there.)
165: Not yet menopausal, fyi. In fact I am probably ovulating AS I TYPE; hence my giddy mood.
170: Seriously, the robot isn't any more expensive than a good vacuum cleaner. And it's so cute! Plus it freaks out the cat!
152: there's this little trick which sounds like a good way to give money to the orthopedic surgeons. What's the YouTube URL?
151: Ned, I'm perfectly willing to give you some credit but 146 is brilliant.
171.2 could be better expressed as "TD 1"
Re: boy do people need to get over it.
and
you are obviously not nearly shy or insecure enough for this to even be a concern.
They're both true. Maintaining such complete ambiguity as to be able to plausibly deny romantic intent is, frankly, pretty juvenile (and in some cases downright manipulative). But there's a long way between that and flirtatious frankness such as B. is recommending. I can't be the only one who likes the "step-forward, wait-for-the-other-to-step-forward, repeat" pattern, right? I mean, it's sexy. You're building intimacy.
And, as an added bonus, if somebody doesn't step foward to meet you, you aren't out ten steps out there on a limb by yourself. Just one step.
You have to make yourself a little vulnerable, lest you end up with multiple stories along the lines of Ideal's (non-)footrub episode.
173: I would get one just to freak out my cat, had I the cash and the ability to pick up clutter off of the floor. I need a robot to organize my paperwork.
You have to make yourself a little vulnerable
See, this is the problem right here.
172: Talented though my girly bits may be, I cannot type with them. No worries.
and the ability to pick up clutter off of the floor.
This is really the secret to the robot vacuum: like forcing you to clean up before the maid arrives, basically.
176: Part of the reason one goes the frank route is because it punctures the anxiety of the knowing-not-knowing. Alas, it does preemptively end the fun of the dance, but it's not just the shy people who find the ambiguity excurciating. SO THERE.
Speaking of headlines:
ATTACK OF THE KILLER LESBIANS
"Next thing he knew, he was encircled, beaten and knifed in the gut right there on a Greenwich Village sidewalk - by seven bloodthirsty young lesbians."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04122007/news/regionalnews/attack_of_the_killer_lesbians_regionalnews_laura_italiano.htm
I believe that should be in the "Girls Gone Wild" thread.
178: What you have to recognize is that the vulnerability can't be avoided. If you're trying to have sex with someone, at some point you have to make your intentions clear, at which point you can be rejected. Being mealy-mouthed about it doesn't allow for less vulnerability, it just increases the chance that you'll miscommunicate what's going on.
176: Sure -- when things are going smoothly and deftly, it's a back-and-forth of little steps forward that get reciprocated by the other person, and no one has to put themselves too far out there. But when that's not working, which is often for many of us, it's an immensely better idea to move toward more explicitness rather than muddling ahead despite ambiguity or incomprehension. (Quitting and going home is always a fair option, but that leads to never getting laid.)
182: No, this thread is correct, because it turns out the actual story is that the guy was trying a little gay-bashing.
182: That right there shows the difference between the Times and the Post.
What you have to recognize is that the vulnerability can't be avoided. If you're trying to have sex with someone, at some point you have to make your intentions clear, at which point you can be rejected. Being mealy-mouthed about it doesn't allow for less vulnerability, it just increases the chance that you'll miscommunicate what's going on.
Oh, absolutely. I mean, I'm totally aware of this on an intellectual level, but when it comes to actually carrying it out in practice I end up chickening out every time. It's definitely something I need to work on, which is kind of why I'm going on about it here.
