Re: Times Style Section Discovers Fun New Trend: Serial Rape

1

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.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:22 AM
horizontal rule
2

It's the title element.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:29 AM
horizontal rule
3

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.


Posted by: Idealist | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:29 AM
horizontal rule
4

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.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:33 AM
horizontal rule
5

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.


Posted by: Idealist | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:38 AM
horizontal rule
6

Really, guys, no jury will believe that a guy who looks like this could ever be a rapist.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:42 AM
horizontal rule
7

Notice how the lawyer played the race (Gandhi) card.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:44 AM
horizontal rule
8

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?


Posted by: Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:49 AM
horizontal rule
9

It's interesting/disheartening to see that the standard media defense for people accused of rape hasn't changed at all.


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:53 AM
horizontal rule
10

You can't really fault a guy if women throw themselves at him.


Posted by: Clownaesthesiologist | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:01 AM
horizontal rule
11

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.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:06 AM
horizontal rule
12

6: Holy shit, it's Ogged.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:07 AM
horizontal rule
13

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 . . .


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:10 AM
horizontal rule
14

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?)


Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:14 AM
horizontal rule
15

12: No way, Ogged could never swim in that hair.


Posted by: Todd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:25 AM
horizontal rule
16

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).


Posted by: Idealist | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:36 AM
horizontal rule
17

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 § 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.


Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:02 AM
horizontal rule
18

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.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:30 AM
horizontal rule
19

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?


Posted by: julia | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:44 AM
horizontal rule
20

Ogged could never swim in that hair

Duh. Ogged swims in a pool.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:46 AM
horizontal rule
21

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.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:47 AM
horizontal rule
22

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.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:49 AM
horizontal rule
23

"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."


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:53 AM
horizontal rule
24

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.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:53 AM
horizontal rule
25

Yeah, but he's got clout in a way that 15-year-olds on Myspace would recognize as clout.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:56 AM
horizontal rule
26

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".


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:59 AM
horizontal rule
27

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.)


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:59 AM
horizontal rule
28

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.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:59 AM
horizontal rule
29

28: That's why it sucks not having a car.


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:00 AM
horizontal rule
30

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.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:11 AM
horizontal rule
31

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.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:11 AM
horizontal rule
32

Perhaps he failed on step #1, "Seem enraged".


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:14 AM
horizontal rule
33

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.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:17 AM
horizontal rule
34

I wonder what he'd say if you asked him if he's a feminist.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:17 AM
horizontal rule
35

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.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:22 AM
horizontal rule
36

But in any case, nothing could possibly excuse the headline.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:24 AM
horizontal rule
37

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.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:24 AM
horizontal rule
38

The thousand yard stare? Mmm, this is not necessarily a completely harmless fetish. Perhaps you could switch to furries.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:32 AM
horizontal rule
39

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.


Posted by: Clownaesthesiologist | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:37 AM
horizontal rule
40

If you're trying to get laid, you don't put clothes on.

Is there an exception for provocative lingerie?


Posted by: Clownaesthesiologist | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:41 AM
horizontal rule
41

Yoga pants are "clothes." See-through panties are not "clothes."


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:44 AM
horizontal rule
42

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.


Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:50 AM
horizontal rule
43

42: Is there something between the two?


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:53 AM
horizontal rule
44

500-yard stare?


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:53 AM
horizontal rule
45

What if it's "I think I see prey over there -- in yoga pants."


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:54 AM
horizontal rule
46

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.


Posted by: Nathan Williams | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
47

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?


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:00 AM
horizontal rule
48

You're talking about relationships, not ambiguously sexual situations.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:03 AM
horizontal rule
49

There's such a thing as an ambiguously sexual relationship.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:04 AM
horizontal rule
50

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.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:07 AM
horizontal rule
51

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.


Posted by: Idealist | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:09 AM
horizontal rule
52

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:10 AM
horizontal rule
53

I was talking about LB's dismissal in 48 of Kotsko's 47, not about the dude the article's about.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:11 AM
horizontal rule
54

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.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:13 AM
horizontal rule
55

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:14 AM
horizontal rule
56

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.


Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:14 AM
horizontal rule
57

55 - Yoga pants are tighter and more flattering than sweatpants. But they are still code for "relaxing around the house".


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:18 AM
horizontal rule
58

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.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
59

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:24 AM
horizontal rule
60

"I'll do anything", of course, would also not be a defense.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:26 AM
horizontal rule
61

As I recall, the yoga pants lady did give an unambiguous "no", so the pajamas argument is peripheral.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:26 AM
horizontal rule
62

Actually, I think overreadiness to generalize from oneself might be worse than rape.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:27 AM
horizontal rule
63

Sure, if you're the US president it is.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:28 AM
horizontal rule
64

QED.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:31 AM
horizontal rule
65

"overreadiness to generalize oneself" sounds like a rape defense.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
66

She put on pajamas, which in my experience always means yes, yerroner.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
67

"I knew I wanted to have sex with her, so it seemed like a safe assumption that she'd feel the same."


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:38 AM
horizontal rule
68

I think you're on to something with 67.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:39 AM
horizontal rule
69

67: but if you're generalizing from yourself properly, the "feel the same" there would be: she wants to have sex with herself.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:42 AM
horizontal rule
70

she wants to have sex with herself

"And I figured I'd stick around to give her a helping hand, yerronor."


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:43 AM
horizontal rule
71

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."


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:45 AM
horizontal rule
72

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."


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:50 AM
horizontal rule
73

"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 (


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:53 AM
horizontal rule
74

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.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:54 AM
horizontal rule
75

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."


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:55 AM
horizontal rule
76

Even getting naked doesn't necessarily mean anything more than "I'm a naturist".


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 12:01 PM
horizontal rule
77

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.


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 12:04 PM
horizontal rule
78

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?


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 12:04 PM
horizontal rule
79

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...."


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 12:11 PM
horizontal rule
80

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?


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 12:33 PM
horizontal rule
81

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!


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 12:33 PM
horizontal rule
82

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.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 12:36 PM
horizontal rule
83

Repeatedly spelling it "pyjamas" has got to constitute consent to having some punishment visited upon you.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 12:37 PM
horizontal rule
84

That's quite enough British-bashing, Mr. Noah Webster Jr.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 12:39 PM
horizontal rule
85

Whoops. Not an intended Britishism, just bad spelling.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 12:41 PM
horizontal rule
86

As a sexual particularist, I hold that pajamas or yoga pants have no fixed valence.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 12:53 PM
horizontal rule
87

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.


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 12:53 PM
horizontal rule
88

The phrase "bovinely pregnant" totally enrages me, too.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 12:56 PM
horizontal rule
89

"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.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 12:58 PM
horizontal rule
90

What about crotchless yoga pants? Could be a sexual prop, could just be that the seam split.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 12:58 PM
horizontal rule
91

Sure—"bovinely pregnant" enrages. But if someone likened you to ox-eyed Hera, it would be a compliment. Fickle! Fickle! Fickle!


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 12:59 PM
horizontal rule
92

88:

Do you prefer "Big as a house?"


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 12:59 PM
horizontal rule
93

"What about crotchless yoga pants? Could be a sexual prop, could just be that the seam split."

Is this related to the pregnant thread?


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 1:00 PM
horizontal rule
94

Or how come:
"trailor trash" = insult.
"the trash that launched a thousand trailors" = compliment.
Crazy wimmen!


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 1:01 PM
horizontal rule
95

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.


Posted by: Idealist | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 1:02 PM
horizontal rule
96

Oh Heebie of the Park. Her ass launched a thousand posts.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 1:02 PM
horizontal rule
97

. 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.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 1:13 PM
horizontal rule
98

Which signal?

No means no, no matter what she is wearing. Sorry to be unclear.


Posted by: Idealist | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 1:16 PM
horizontal rule
99

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.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 1:24 PM
horizontal rule
100

Wait. How about shorts that say "juicy" and an Unfogged t-shirt?

What is that message?


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 1:26 PM
horizontal rule
101

"My boyfriend mugged this weird kid with glasses and all I got was this stupid t-shirt."


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 1:28 PM
horizontal rule
102

"I thought it'd be ironic to wear Dad's t-shirt now that I live in a dorm."


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 1:29 PM
horizontal rule
103

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?


Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 1:37 PM
horizontal rule
104

Wait, there are Unfogged t-shirts now?

Why wasn't I informed?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 1:39 PM
horizontal rule
105

103: That guy in the foreground of that photo is definitely asking for sex. I mean, just look at what he's wearing.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 1:40 PM
horizontal rule
106

Correction: Young women older than the age of consent like sex, and if they want some you'll be able to tell.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
107

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!


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 1:55 PM
horizontal rule
108

Bio:
of course, that gives the phrase "land that plane" a whole nother meaning.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 1:56 PM
horizontal rule
109

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


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 1:58 PM
horizontal rule
110

Ah, yes, "X". That's the only one you need.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 2:03 PM
horizontal rule
111

What is the signal for "Come back in 45 minutes after this pilot has taken off"?


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 2:04 PM
horizontal rule
112

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.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
113

Young women should also be aware that "love" and "hate" knuckle tattoos, however timeless their appeal, convey mixed messages.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 2:18 PM
horizontal rule
114

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.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 2:19 PM
horizontal rule
115

109: Let's not forget J - On fire, have dangerous cargo


Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
116

G - Your nose is too low. Pull up.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 2:43 PM
horizontal rule
117

XJ. That sounds like a winner.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 2:50 PM
horizontal rule
118

I think that's for use rather later in the evening, apo.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 2:51 PM
horizontal rule
119

34: He'd laugh and say, "one of those fat, humorless bitches?"

OMG, he IS Ogged.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
120

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?


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:01 PM
horizontal rule
121

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.



Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:04 PM
horizontal rule
122

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.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:07 PM
horizontal rule
123

YZ = The words which follow are in plain language


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:07 PM
horizontal rule
124

122: So you want to tell me there's nothing creepy about it?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:10 PM
horizontal rule
125

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.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:11 PM
horizontal rule
126

I reiterate.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:11 PM
horizontal rule
127

121 seems right, particularly the part about how the discussion of signals no longer really has anything to do with the rape story.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:11 PM
horizontal rule
128

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."


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:14 PM
horizontal rule
129

126: Dude, the ugliness of that pattern is irrelevant to the inherent qualities of footie pajamas.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:16 PM
horizontal rule
130

Okay, I was wrong: footie pajamas can send the message I never want to have sex again in my life.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:16 PM
horizontal rule
131

130: I am guffawing, really. That pair, and that pose? Admitted.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:18 PM
horizontal rule
132

129: It's the combination of the rubber ducks and the ass-flap that got me.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:18 PM
horizontal rule
133

Dude, the ass-flap comes in handy.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:19 PM
horizontal rule
134

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:20 PM
horizontal rule
135

134.2: Them's fighting words, my friend.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:21 PM
horizontal rule
136

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?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:21 PM
horizontal rule
137

136: What, you never need to take a dump?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:22 PM
horizontal rule
138

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.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:23 PM
horizontal rule
139

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.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:23 PM
horizontal rule
140

135: I mean the signal flag message "PK". Gosh dude, RB 1.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:23 PM
horizontal rule
141

138 to 137


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
142

Heh.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
143

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!


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
144

138: All I can say is, it works for me, and it worked for redheaded pathologist guy.

140: I skipped those comments. Bo-ring.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:26 PM
horizontal rule
145

138: Plus, if you're that squirrely, what in the world are you going to do once you get your pants off?!?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
146

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.".)


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:28 PM
horizontal rule
147

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!


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:29 PM
horizontal rule
148

137 to 145


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:29 PM
horizontal rule
149

146 has made my afternoon.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:29 PM
horizontal rule
150

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.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:29 PM
horizontal rule
151

144: U, QH. OJ 1

149 - "146" s/b "120"


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:31 PM
horizontal rule
152

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.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:31 PM
horizontal rule
153

Or you could avoid the whole thing by not wearing a damned footie pj.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
154

153: But then you would be cold.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:33 PM
horizontal rule
155

That jumpinjammerz site is a ripoff. I keep hitting the "See More" links, but they never take off the damn pajamas.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:34 PM
horizontal rule
156

145: One problem at a time, yo.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:34 PM
horizontal rule
157

Sifu Tweety thinks you're a creepy perv, apo.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:35 PM
horizontal rule
158

154 - you could have avoided typing that laborious sentence and just said "MCM" with the flags.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:36 PM
horizontal rule
159

157: I know he is.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:36 PM
horizontal rule
160

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.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:36 PM
horizontal rule
161

160: Do I not bleed?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:38 PM
horizontal rule
162

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?


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:40 PM
horizontal rule
163

161: MNX


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:40 PM
horizontal rule
164

I'm just saying, for some of us this sort of thing is easier said than done.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:40 PM
horizontal rule
165

161: you're kinda old, so maybe not.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:41 PM
horizontal rule
166

Hm. Google image search for "footie pajama porn," while interesting, did not supply what I'd hoped it might.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:41 PM
horizontal rule
167

162: Not all houses have central heating, y'know.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:42 PM
horizontal rule
168

Not that I mean to defend b and her decadent footie-pajamas.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:42 PM
horizontal rule
169

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?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:43 PM
horizontal rule
170

B has a robot clean her floors and lives in California. She can afford the central heating she doesn't need. No footies!


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:43 PM
horizontal rule
171

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.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:44 PM
horizontal rule
172

Don't ovulate on the keyboard.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:45 PM
horizontal rule
173

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!


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:46 PM
horizontal rule
174

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.


Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:46 PM
horizontal rule
175

171.2 could be better expressed as "TD 1"


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:48 PM
horizontal rule
176

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.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:48 PM
horizontal rule
177

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.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:49 PM
horizontal rule
178

You have to make yourself a little vulnerable

See, this is the problem right here.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:50 PM
horizontal rule
179

172: Talented though my girly bits may be, I cannot type with them. No worries.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:52 PM
horizontal rule
180

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.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:55 PM
horizontal rule
181

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.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:59 PM
horizontal rule
182

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


Posted by: A. Chandler Moisen | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 3:59 PM
horizontal rule
183

I believe that should be in the "Girls Gone Wild" thread.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:01 PM
horizontal rule
184

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.)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:02 PM
horizontal rule
185

182: No, this thread is correct, because it turns out the actual story is that the guy was trying a little gay-bashing.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:03 PM
horizontal rule
186

182: That right there shows the difference between the Times and the Post.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:03 PM
horizontal rule
187

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.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:06 PM
horizontal rule
188

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.

Oh, well, yeah. I'm all in favor of explicitness when non-explicitness is not working. I just wanted to point out that there is a spectrum. It's not binary.

And hey (to 181), I wasn't implying that being frank can't be great. Quite the contrary! Can leads you places you didn't expect to go, or is a tremendous relief for one/both of you, and/or a kind of gift to your partner. Just that frank doesn't work for everyone, or in all situations.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:07 PM
horizontal rule
189

Hey, the guy suffered a "bizarre beat-down" at the hands of a "seething sapphic septet." That's epic journalism.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:08 PM
horizontal rule
190

In my experience, talking about getting laid on the internet is very, very seldom an effective way to actually get laid more.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:08 PM
horizontal rule
191

Not that people don't try, of course.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:09 PM
horizontal rule
192

Hey, it's not like it's going to lead to me getting laid less.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:10 PM
horizontal rule
193

187: I figured that, pretty much. I'm sounding a little hectoring, but I was going for supportive -- that being explicit won't really put you at any more risk than maintaining ambiguity, and done flirtatiously it can be attractive. (Endearingly awkward can also work, and may be an easier target to aim for.)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:11 PM
horizontal rule
194

192: I apppreciate your, um, optimism?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:12 PM
horizontal rule
195

Endearingly awkward is probably the best way to go for me. I think I can pull it off pretty well.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:14 PM
horizontal rule
196

Endearingly awkward can also work

Oh, yeahhhhhh.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:14 PM
horizontal rule
197

194: I just mean that less is not actually possible given the level I'm starting from.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:14 PM
horizontal rule
198

197: I realize that. Still, always nice to have no way to go but up.

Er, so to speak.

In any case I was mostly talking about much less introspectively thoughtful types than you; the whole internet-speed-seduction scene (e.g. talking about getting laid online) is exactly orthogonal to any path that ever actually leads to sex.

Okay I'll admit it. I wanted to link to double your dating to bait b.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:20 PM
horizontal rule
199

In my experience, talking about getting laid on the internet is very, very seldom an effective way to actually get laid more.

In my experience, this is very much not the case.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:20 PM
horizontal rule
200

198: Have I mentioned that I'm thinking of getting a wallaby?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:22 PM
horizontal rule
201

198: LOL. I have a young friend and former student who used to CONSTANTLY try to tell me that the dating advice in things like Maxim magazine was reliable. Unsurprisingly, he was a virgin at the time.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:22 PM
horizontal rule
202

199: URL?

Not here, clearly.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:22 PM
horizontal rule
203

URL?

http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:26 PM
horizontal rule
204

200: Well of course you guys talked about it here.

To see otherwise reasonable guys acting in these retarded ways at parties is quite depressing. "Say, I'll just rest my hand on your shoulder while asking to read your palm. Oh, look, somebody put some porn on!"


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:27 PM
horizontal rule
205

I loved those guys when I was that age. They're so, so easy to humiliate.

Yes, I have sometimes been a Bad Person.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:29 PM
horizontal rule
206

205: The variety of guys I'm thinking of are closer to your age than you might think, unfortunately.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:50 PM
horizontal rule
207

Not to stereotype, but I'd tend to surmise that guys relying on that sort of dating approach are probably focusing on very young women. The amount of skeevy guys hitting on you drops way off once you get around or past 30.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:55 PM
horizontal rule
208

207: Stereotype away.

My favorite thing, though, is that all of them I've talked to, after explaining their various video-game-like scams to bed as many 18 year olds as possible, finish up with "until I find the one I'd like to marry and spend my life with!"


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:56 PM
horizontal rule
209

The amount of skeevy guys hitting on you drops way off once you get around or past 30.

So it's mostly respectful, classy guys who hit on you now that you are in your 30's?


Posted by: Idealist | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 4:58 PM
horizontal rule
210

206: Ah. Luckily I no longer come into contact with those men very much.

That, or they get scared off way before they get close enough to put their hand on my shoulder.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:02 PM
horizontal rule
211

Oh, I'm drably matronly. I can't think of the last time someone hit on me out of the blue. (And was always offputting -- my sense of how age affects getting hit on is more reports from friends than ever having gotten particularly harassed by unwanted attention myself.)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:03 PM
horizontal rule
212

Wow, I got back from working at the Coop, and look what that pajamas comment started. No, of course I didn't mean that pajamas alone deny consent. I'm just saying it looks like this is not a "She says no but means yes" moment, not even by the standards of the sleazeball in question. Of course the only thing that matters legally is her word "No," but I am almost positive that most adults have had really hot sex that involves the word "No." Mixed signals are not only a real trap for people; for some, they are the heart of consent itself.

I'm not saying had she come out of the bathroom wearing crotchless panties and said "No," that he didn't rape her, but that I could see feeling confused in that scenario.

And why didn't she leave? Because she didn't really have anywhere to go. She came wanting to stay with him, and maybe she would have, given chemistry or the moon cycle, done it willingly, but I just wanted to say it sounded to me like she did and said everything she needed to be totally upfront about not wanting sex with him. I know all that's required is the "No," but, as someone who gets jerked around a lot and is bad at reading people's signals, I could imagine scenarios in which a "No" might be confusing. This is not one of them.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:05 PM
horizontal rule
213

195: Forget endearingly awkward and go for the 546.8 yard stare. We already know it works and it's easy to develop with just a little practice. E.A. might work but it's more likely to get you a blind date with someone owning a great personality.


Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:09 PM
horizontal rule
214

The 546.8 yard stare + awkward endearing come-on = sex within 36 hours.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:10 PM
horizontal rule
215

it's easy to develop with just a little practice.

You do need a straight stretch of road where you can pace out the necessary distance so you can work on your accuracy.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:12 PM
horizontal rule
216

In my experience, talking about getting laid on Unfogged.com is very, very seldom an effective way to actually get laid more.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:12 PM
horizontal rule
217

I would like to ask that no one aware of a counterexample pipe up here. It can only lead to sorrow.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:14 PM
horizontal rule
218

216: I've only just tried it, but so far that rule does seem to be holding up, yes.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:15 PM
horizontal rule
219

John, you know that LB and M/lls are an item, right?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:15 PM
horizontal rule
220

Oops.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:16 PM
horizontal rule
221

And the homebaked bread is delicious, IYKWIM.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:16 PM
horizontal rule
222

John, you know that LB and M/lls are an item, right?

What! I though she only had eyes for dsquared.


Posted by: Idealist | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:17 PM
horizontal rule
223

216: Yes, and for the specific reason that you assholes all make me feel bad about my moves. I went to a party on Friday night and could not work up the gumption, having been made squeamish by all of you with your squeamishness.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:18 PM
horizontal rule
224

In my experience, this is very much not the case.

B, God forgive me, but I don't think that your success at getting laid is relevant to the actual question on the table. A generic woman's singles ad gets something like ten times the responses as a generic guy's ad. I know that that's sexist and unfair, but that's how it is.

If I were 20 years younger I'd practice putting the 500-odd yard stare to good use. During my intense loner days I actually had a hot Ayn Rand chick checking me out, but I failed to capitalize, being a socialist and shit.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:20 PM
horizontal rule
225

216: Ha! We have destroyed another promising young life!


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:22 PM
horizontal rule
226

224: Women getting laid doesn't count? Sexist.

Also I am FAR from generic, thankyouverymuch.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:26 PM
horizontal rule
227

You know what always works? Saying you care about what a woman thinks of you as a person. Go buy some nice pants and ask her if she thinks you look cute in them. Ask her if she thinks you did the right thing or not. I once developed an extremely steamy desire for a guy who told a waitress he'd have whatever would make me think he was cool. It was so stupid, and he played it so dry, I handled the rest.

But I am this way because I am an excellent closer if I have enough of an opening. Most women are better closers than men. If men would just step up and obviously start the game in the right direction, we'll get it finished and you won't have to wring your hands about consent.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:27 PM
horizontal rule
228

LB, I think that if you took your Catholic schoolgirl uniform out of the closet you'd get a gratifying quantity of attention.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:29 PM
horizontal rule
229

On the internet, high-class mental women who are fussy about bras get even more hits than generic women.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:30 PM
horizontal rule
230

You know, that's advice from someone who's much smoother than I am, so the 'women are better closers than men' bit is either overstated or at least not universal, but there's a real point about making your intentions unambiguous and waiting for an advance. I've certainly made moves on guys that I would never have made if I hadn't been certain that they'd be well received.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:31 PM
horizontal rule
231

228: You know, I have reason to believe that that's probably true. But again, I'm working the drably matronly thing these days.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:33 PM
horizontal rule
232

Pigtails take 10-20 years off your perceived age.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:35 PM
horizontal rule
233

As do footie jammies.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:35 PM
horizontal rule
234

233: If you're 20.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:38 PM
horizontal rule
235

227 is very good, and not something that had really occurred to me before. Thanks, AWB.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:39 PM
horizontal rule
236

And, 231 brings it back to the status quo of the 1940s.

Step 1: Woman: Hang around making it clear whether you are available or not to men in general.
Step 2: Man: Clearly and bravely state your intentions to a particular woman.
Step 3: Woman: Gracefully perform filtering procedure to indicate whether man's intentions are welcome or unwelcome at the present moment.
Step 4: Collaborate on specific plans.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:40 PM
horizontal rule
237

216: I'm pretty sure the volume and vehemence of my contributions to the Barry Bonds thread have put a stake through the heart of my chances to spend some private time with one of unfogged.com's beautiful lasses.


Posted by: Nbarnes | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:40 PM
horizontal rule
238

236: 231 does that?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:41 PM
horizontal rule
239

I wonder if speed seduction techniques of the 19th century involved writing "purchaser of wallabies" on your calling card.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:41 PM
horizontal rule
240

237: I'm pretty sure most of the site's lasses didn't read that thread.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:42 PM
horizontal rule
241

Sorry, not 231, 229. And I think that as a shy person, I like teo might have been more comfortable in a world where that was the rule, instead of the rule being "Hitting on women must be done with great frequency, but at the same time you must pretend you are not hitting on them."


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:42 PM
horizontal rule
242

No lasses are reading that thread.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:44 PM
horizontal rule
243

229?


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:44 PM
horizontal rule
244

My late mother (b. 1918) used cigarettes in dating. Women who smoked were dateable, but if a guy seemed skeezy she could also just light up and keep the burning end between the guy and her. She never mentioned jabbing anyon in the eye with one or anything.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:45 PM
horizontal rule
245

I could have sworn that the label on "230" said "229" five seconds ago. I checked it twice. Okay, it's back to suicide for me.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:45 PM
horizontal rule
246

Fuck.

Hitting on women with great frequency is stupid.

Letting specific women who you specifically like know that you specifically like them, however, is a good thing to do.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:45 PM
horizontal rule
247

I love JE's mom.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:47 PM
horizontal rule
248

242: You did.


Posted by: Nbarnes | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:47 PM
horizontal rule
249

Fuck.

No, see, that comes after all this other stuff.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:47 PM
horizontal rule
250

Compliments are intrinsically nice. I gave my sister a compliment the other day and she was extremely pleased.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:48 PM
horizontal rule
251

242 to 247.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:48 PM
horizontal rule
252

The important thing is for the man to think of a way to speak that expresses interest only to women who are interested, but does not freak out or intimidate women who are not interested. Ask a woman if she likes your new jacket, and you'll either get a very warm, "Yes, you look adorable in it" or a "It's nice. Where did you get it?" She's none the wiser if she's not interested in you.

I have a whole list of diagnostic-style lines for women to deliver to dudes, but, unfortunately, I find that they answer them in the super-flirty way whether they plan on sleeping with me or not.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:48 PM
horizontal rule
253

246: And if you specifically like all of 'em?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:48 PM
horizontal rule
254

FUCK. I mean, 248 to 247.

Anyway, NBarnes, you never had to worry about that in the first place.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:48 PM
horizontal rule
255

The important thing is for the man to think of a way to speak that expresses interest only to women who are interested, but does not freak out or intimidate women who are not interested.

Yes, exactly. It's not very easy, though.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:49 PM
horizontal rule
256

Letting specific women who you specifically like know that you specifically like them, however, is a good thing to do.

Ironically, because of all the equality and whatnot nowadays, the more certain I am that I like a woman, the harder it is to hit on her, because the way I know I like her is by developing a non-romantic friendship, which is jeopardized by the awkwardness and uncertainties of the hitting-on process. That's why it would be better if the process went back to being formalized a little bit.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:50 PM
horizontal rule
257

253 to 252.

I have a funny personal story about attempting to fish for compliments from college girls and shooting myself in the foot through sheer cussedness, but I think I won't share it with you all.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:51 PM
horizontal rule
258

253: No lady wants to feel that a gentleman is indiscriminate in his affections.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:51 PM
horizontal rule
259

Ned's 256 also gets it exactly right.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:51 PM
horizontal rule
260

258: Right, so the question becomes how you fake it.

Ooooonly kidding.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:52 PM
horizontal rule
261

257 NO FAIR.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:52 PM
horizontal rule
262

Thanks, teo. It's based on three unrelated incidents which led to the friendship suddenly vanishing. The friendship doesn't ALWAYS vanish, though.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:54 PM
horizontal rule
263

256: Well, it'd be better for you (and for me, since I usually only get romantically interested in women I already know as friends (as opposed to fall in lust with, which is quicker and easier, like the Dark Side)), but there are people that manage to go from 'unknown' to 'romantic' without 'friends' in between.


Posted by: Nbarnes | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:54 PM
horizontal rule
264

I'm reading "Pride and Prejudice" right now. Austen is ultra-realistic in many ways, but the moral of the story is that 1.) Bright, sarcastic, poor women with embarrassing families get to marry multi-millionaires and 2.) standoffish guys with a stick up their butt end up happily married. It's like she was positing a utopia of sarcasm, where hyper-critical people fell in love with one another and lived happily ever after.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:56 PM
horizontal rule
265

I should probably stop worrying so much about the possibility of the friendship vanishing if I express romantic interest. It's the main thing holding me back.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:57 PM
horizontal rule
266

So instead of hitting on her, why not just propose marriage and skip the interim stuff?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:57 PM
horizontal rule
267

Well, now's the time, what with being about to graduate and diasporize in a couple months.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:58 PM
horizontal rule
268

267 to 265.

266: I propose a system of "courtship" which can be entered into without the drastic consequences of "marriage", while still leaving "marriage" open as a possibility.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:59 PM
horizontal rule
269

Austen seems to have left it to later authors to illustrate how some of those marriages turn out; she just takes you as far as the wedding.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 5:59 PM
horizontal rule
270

267: I'm working on it.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:01 PM
horizontal rule
271

Austin writes Mary Sues. I (we?) love her for it.


Posted by: Nbarnes | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:01 PM
horizontal rule
272

269: Or to earlier authors. See Amelia.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:01 PM
horizontal rule
273

264: Well, she's trying to reconcile the competing emerging ideologies of (1) romantic/companionate marriage, in which being interesting and likeable are selling points, and marriage is supposed to be about love rather than family alliances and wealth; and (2) women's economic disempowerment, in which marriage contracts designed to protect the woman's family's financial interests in the marriage and offspring are seen as mercenary, and women are supposed to increasingly rely on affection as a guarantor of their economic survival after marriage.

Which reminds me that when I initially saw this thread, I wanted to recommend this book, which is about a model and includes incidents of her sexual exploits with designers and managers and the like, and is seriously one of the best novels I've read in quite some time.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:04 PM
horizontal rule
274

I wonder what difference strategy/approach makes in the already friends situation. It seems like that's a case where whether to say anything is more important than how to say it. After knowing each other for a while, are you really going to get turned down for being straightforward rather than first asking how you look in your new pants? Of course you can keep dropping hints and trying to sort out how she feels before you say anything, but if the friendship vanishes I'd hope it would do so because of the underlying emotions and not your choice of words.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:04 PM
horizontal rule
275

Austen does NOT write Mary Sues. You people are evil tin-eared philistines.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:06 PM
horizontal rule
276

274: No, you're not going to get turned down for being straightforward. You might get teased, because you're at an age when the person with whom you are enamored is equally awkward and embarrassed and unsure what to do about the situation.

Then twenty some odd years later, said person will apologize for having been an idiot, and you'll both laugh about it.

'Course, you'll never actually sleep with them, but the "ruin the friendship" fear is ridiculously overrated. You might as well try; it's good to have things to laugh about with old friends.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:08 PM
horizontal rule
277

274: I have never managed to go further than making out with someone I was already friends with, so my advice is useless in this scenario. Part of me thinks maybe friendship itself is what makes those initial flirting scenarios all impossible. But people here have done it, so what do I know?


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:09 PM
horizontal rule
278

the "ruin the friendship" fear is ridiculously overrated

Nah...it's pretty critical among people for whom the prospect of an intimate relationship of any sort is a big deal. In that case, when it becomes clear that one person wants such a relationship, and the other person would rather be single than have such a relationship, a power dynamic appears that didn't exist before.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:10 PM
horizontal rule
279

I'm not saying it isn't a real fear; I'm saying it's unlikely that you'll really ruin the friendship as such. You have to think of the long game.

Anyway, "the other person would rather be single" is a silly and self-defeating way to think of it. The choices in life are not "be with X person or be single," and it's perfectly possible to love someone dearly, not feel sexy about them, and still want not to be single.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:13 PM
horizontal rule
280

I've been turned down and, more gradually, had that same friendship vanish. I was straightforward but I don't think not being so would have made a difference (which is what I was thinking of in writing 274); the fact that it all made sense, in a way, did not make it less painful. That said, I only regret not saying something sooner.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:13 PM
horizontal rule
281

Is it possible that there is some factor that lack of respect plays in flirtation, to take us back to the initial discussion of sleaziness? The better you know someone, the less sleazily you is willing to treat them.

I sometimes worry that, as a teacher, I've learned to treat all strangers with a certain distance and respect that precludes the kinds of things I used to do in dating. Not that I was ever disrespectful (I think) in my seductions, but that now, I meet strangers and think, Oh, I'm sure he has other things going on in his life. Look at him being nice to me out of some sense of obligation! So I don't push anything at all now. (Yes, I've been single for three weeks and am complaining.)


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:17 PM
horizontal rule
282

I will say, though, that in general--and in hindsight--usually when you're agonizing in that "should I or shouldn't I say something??" stage, the reason you're doing it is because you recognize that, in fact, the person isn't interested in A Relationship but you want that to not be the case. If they were interested, then the agonizing would be of a slightly different nature, more of the "urgh, I think so and so likes me but my god, what if I'm wrong and I look like an asshole?" variety.

I recommend saying something in either case; if you don't, you'll continue to agonize much, much longer than you should.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:17 PM
horizontal rule
283

"you is" s/b, obviously, "you are." I am Becks-style.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:18 PM
horizontal rule
284

265: If the friendship's worth anything, and you don't get all weird about being turned down if that's how it works out, it should survive just fine.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:19 PM
horizontal rule
285

281: No, and no again. It isn't lack of respect. It's the combination of assurance and mild, titillating uncertainty that makes flirting fun. Enjoying a game together doesn't connote a lack of respect; on the contrary.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:19 PM
horizontal rule
286

282: But what if you aren't interested in a relationship, but in sex? The problem there is that there may be a totally justified accusation of sleaziness w/r/t your friend, which is different from mild sleaziness toward a stranger.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:19 PM
horizontal rule
287

Now, now, Ms. Prudish. Wanting sex is not sleazy.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:21 PM
horizontal rule
288

287: I would like to think so, Bitch. I would like to think so.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:22 PM
horizontal rule
289

But what if you aren't interested in a relationship, but in sex?

This situation wouldn't happen with someone who I already know that I like and respect.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:22 PM
horizontal rule
290

Er, "hasn't happened", I suppose that should be.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:23 PM
horizontal rule
291

Incidentally, having just read a couple of Henry James novels, it's really weird to see the phrase "making love" used to mean flirting/courting.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:24 PM
horizontal rule
292

You see, Bitch? Ned would find a friend who cared about him wanting to sex him to be unacceptable. (Perhaps?) I would like to think it wouldn't be taken as sleazy, but I think, in most cases, it would be. There is no nice way to say, "I don't want to have your babies or anything, but we should totally get it on and then go back to being friends."


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:25 PM
horizontal rule
293

It won't be weird in another generation. I've never heard that phrase actually uttered by a real human being to describe sex in my lifetime, and it's almost disappeared from pop culture too.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:26 PM
horizontal rule
294

291: Ack. I read some admonishment about dangling participles the other day, and I've started noticing them all of a sudden.


Posted by: pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:26 PM
horizontal rule
295

286: I think the problem there is that if you're friends, you're already in a 'relationship'. With a stranger you can reasonably flee after the night's over, but you can't do that with a friend -- regardless of whether you want a long-term romantic relationship, having sex with a friend is messing with a currently existing relationship. Not necessarily sleazy or to be avoided, but higher stakes.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:27 PM
horizontal rule
296

Sleazy, wielded well, can be highly winning.

284 is maybe underestimating the baseline level of weird produced by a shy, lonely person being very nervous about something.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:27 PM
horizontal rule
297

293: The fuck buddy relationship is a long and noble tradition, I'm telling you.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:28 PM
horizontal rule
298

Ned has a point in 278. It's not by any means universal, but it does happen. OK, it may not be the healthiest thing in the world to settle for the crumbs of friendship when you want the delicious dessert of a relationship (or even just sex), but it happens plenty


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:29 PM
horizontal rule
299

My favorite thing, though, is that all of them I've talked to, after explaining their various video-game-like scams to bed as many 18 year olds as possible, finish up with "until I find the one I'd like to marry and spend my life with!"

God, my sister keeps running into these assholes who praise her, tell her how wonderful she is, how she's the sort of girl they saw themselves ending up with, but won't date her because she's not some 19-year-old twinkie they can use then dump. No offense intended to the 19-year-old twinkies, but good god is this perceived madonna/whore thing wreaking havoc on my sister's self-esteem. She's their mental fallback, which just keeps her hope alive long enough to get squashed.
---
Téo, there's the risk you'll lose the friendship, but it's not a really serious one in my experience. The real risk is that it's hard to date a close friend casually, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:29 PM
horizontal rule
300

I'm with B on this one. Being interested in sex with someone is or ought to be flattering.

Similarly, I have friends that I know aren't interested in me romantically or sexually that I still flirt in a highly pleasant and mutual way with. Done right, being flirted with is flattering and appreciative. I think it's possible to communicate that someone is attractive, interesting, and sexy without being sleazy or needy or generally off-putting.


Posted by: Nbarnes | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:29 PM
horizontal rule
301

293 was to 291. 297 was to 289?


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:30 PM
horizontal rule
302

the baseline level of weird produced by a shy, lonely person being very nervous about something

Yeah, that's why the distinction I'm making in 282, though obvious in hindsight--even to the shy and lonely--is very, very difficult to recognize when you're in the middle of the thing.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:30 PM
horizontal rule
303

Dangling participles are, like dangling earrings, a signal. Example: "Would you like to see where my bedroom's at?"


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:31 PM
horizontal rule
304

settle for the crumbs of friendship when you want the delicious dessert of a relationship

This is an entirely different animal than having a friend whom one thinks is super fabulous and decides one wishes one were dating. The latter, one should be able to survive even after an embarrassing confession. The "crumbs of friendship" situation, however, is insulting to the so-called friend, and deserves a quick death.

Upshot: fucking say something, already.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:33 PM
horizontal rule
305

The fuck buddy relationship is a long and noble tradition, I'm telling you.

It seems odd to me that the lustful impulse would be separate from the romantic impulse, but if I was single and a decade older I'd probably have a more jaded, no-bullshit attitude.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:34 PM
horizontal rule
306

Would you like to see where my bedroom's at, asshole.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:35 PM
horizontal rule
307

I'm curious to know, though, if the situation that AWB keeps finding herself in is one of 'I want to have one night with this person and then go back to being friends with no ongoing sexual relationship' or 'I want to have just the relationship we have now, only we sleep together every so often'.

The former would, I think, interact weirdly with my own desires and needs with respect to sexual relationships and sexual connections. The latter is perfectly normal. At least, in my world it is.


Posted by: Nbarnes | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:35 PM
horizontal rule
308

The fuck buddy stuff almost never works. Or rather, it works just fine until someone wants a relationship, falls seriously for someone else, or gets weirded out. And it's very hard to do with a close long-term friend.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:36 PM
horizontal rule
309

300: Yes, but there's flirting that everyone holds the key to the playfulness of, but then there's flirting that only one person knows is just playful. I spent four hours at a bar flirting with a friend from my program last week, only to find out from someone else that he has a girlfriend. I'd be fine with the flirting if I had all the information, but it was withheld from me in a way to make my interest more interested than his. This seems terribly unfair.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:36 PM
horizontal rule
310

It seems odd to me that the lustful impulse would be separate from the romantic impulse

You have never had lustful thoughts towards someone you weren't in love with. Uh huh.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:37 PM
horizontal rule
311

Of course if someone replies "Where did you get your sentences pierced? I'd love to dangle my prepositions" you know they're not interested.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:39 PM
horizontal rule
312

it works just fine until someone wants a [different kind of] relationship, falls seriously for someone else, or gets weirded out.

So pretty much it works as well as every other relationship model in the world, is what you're saying.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:40 PM
horizontal rule
313

307: I dunno. I didn't plan that far. All I know is the desire is, "Man, it would be really fun to fuck you," not, "Wow, I secretly wish you were my ongoing lover for the next X years." Past that, I hadn't really thought it out. It won't happen for me, as I'm only really good with strangers.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:41 PM
horizontal rule
314

310, I'd consider those "idle thoughts", not to seriously consider acting on. Maybe I'm missing out on something, but it's easier to just dismiss the idea of having sex with someone who is sexy but appears to have nothing in common with me.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:41 PM
horizontal rule
315

309: This is supposed to be fair? Eliminating systemic biases I can get on board with, but imagining that dating and romance is supposed to be fair to everybody is probably going to set you up for some real disappointment in life.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:42 PM
horizontal rule
316

Sure, sexy but has nothing in common is easy to dismiss. Now let's move on to the second step: you've never had a woman friend who you liked very much, weren't especially in love with, but nonetheless thought was awfully damn cute and you sure couldn't blame the guy(s) who *were* in love with her?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:43 PM
horizontal rule
317

312: Nope, not what I'm saying, because the relationship has all the earmarks of a long-term commitment -- you care deeply about the person, you know them really really well -- with the actual commitment of something like a fling. They self-destruct in their own unique way.

The only people I know who made that sort of relationship work without drama were exes. They knew they weren't compatible, but sometimes they got horny. No delusions that it was going anywhere, no hopes on the part of one party that it might.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:45 PM
horizontal rule
318

315: I guess so. I'm just bad at anything other than full disclosure. If I have a boyfriend, I say so upfront. If I don't, but am pursuing other interests, I mention them. We can still flirt--I get that--but I think if one person discloses and the other doesn't, he is unnecessarily maintaining the upper hand. By simply mentioning his other commitments, then we enter into that fun space where we can flirt without either of us trying to make the fateful move.

(No, I did not make the fateful move in the above school-chum scenario, but had I done so, I would have felt like a sleaze.)


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:45 PM
horizontal rule
319

Incidentally, why hasn't anybody mentioned alcohol as a solution for 292? It goes a long way to be able to say "hah, wow, why'd we do that? Good times."

Obviously, in the interests of equity and avoiding confusion, both people should be equally drunk.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:46 PM
horizontal rule
320

316: In that case, what I might do is convince myself inaccurately that we might have a future together. What I don't do is fantasize about no-strings-attached sex. I tend to be unable to "live in the moment" and ignore the future consequences of my actions, more so than most people I know. The fantasy one-night-stand leads inevitably to the fantasy of "what happens the next morning? That'll be awkward."

Plus as I said, the more cynical attitude develops with age.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:48 PM
horizontal rule
321

317: Huh. Well, I've had plenty of fb friendships and they've pretty much all been quite satisfactory, as far as I know.

318: I dunno re. this upper hand thing. A lot of the time, flirting is fun, but if you tell someone else you have a significant other, then they get all prudish and call off the flirting. I don't think that non-disclosure necessarily means they're being unfair; it may mean that they just figure you both know it's a mutually fun game whether or not it's "going anywhere," and they don't want you to quit in the middle.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:48 PM
horizontal rule
322

320: I was as cynical, if that's what you want to call it, when I was 19.

Though I do get you on the "unable to fantasize" scenario. It's not no-strings sex for me, but I have my own stupid hangups.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:50 PM
horizontal rule
323

"cynical" being the opposite of "romantic'.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:52 PM
horizontal rule
324

310, 316: No, but there's a lot of overlap between what makes me want to be friends with someone, what makes me fall in love with someone, and what makes me want to go to bed with someone. This is one of the things I don't universalize about myself, to be sure.

313: Ah, I see. It's quite different for me. When I think about how much I want to fuck someone, it's nearly always inextricably bound up with 'I want to be in love with this person and fuck them over and over over the course of years and have an ongoing relationship'.


Posted by: Nbarnes | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:53 PM
horizontal rule
325

Ah. Yeah, I was not romantic in my youth. Oddly, I have actually begun to recognize the truth of certain romantic conceits in my old age.

I'm glad to have done it backwards; I think a lot of damage is done when romantic notions and inexperience combine.l


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:55 PM
horizontal rule
326

I think a lot of damage is done when romantic notions and inexperience combine

Hey!


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:56 PM
horizontal rule
327

having sex with a friend is messing with a currently existing relationship.

And this makes it a big deal, so teo is right to be concerned.

The best friend I have ever had will not even speak to me anymore because it got romantic and then she regretted it and there was no way to go back, for her, to just being friends.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:56 PM
horizontal rule
328

So do you guys think I should tell LB that I want it to be about more than just the homebaked bread between us?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:57 PM
horizontal rule
329

324.1: Me too; part of my elderly romanticism is that I find the overlap wistfully lovely, even with the FBs.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 6:59 PM
horizontal rule
330

326: Not necessarily, and I mostly mean damage to oneself. It's not an insult, it's just me saying I'm glad I was hard-headed about (say) who I married and the specific qualities I thought were necessary to a lifelong commitment. Especially since I've seen a lot of people who married for love and assumed that that was enough end up being very unhappy down the road.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:01 PM
horizontal rule
331

I think a lot of damage is done when romantic notions and inexperience combine.

That's why our wise forebears set up the "Hey Suzy, the four-times-yearly village courtship event is coming up, is your dance card full? Please note that I am ready to escort you on the ritual evening promenade on the High Street, if you'll wear my signet ring" system of regulated courtship so that the inexperienced romantics don't need to make inappropriate public asses of themselves as part of the learning process. Subtlety and ambiguity is better left to people who have been single for a long time and have lost their romantic foolhardiness.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:04 PM
horizontal rule
332

"Subtlety and ambiguity is" s/b "Subtlety and ambiguity am"


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:07 PM
horizontal rule
333

romantic notions + inexperience = many, many 19th century novels


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:07 PM
horizontal rule
334

I retain my youthful cynicism as the younger generation ages around me.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:07 PM
horizontal rule
335

I'm beginning to understand the "cryptic" epithet.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:08 PM
horizontal rule
336

I WAS SO MUCH OLDER THEN, I'M OLDER AND SEXIER THAN THAT NOW


Posted by: OPINIONATED GRANDMA | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:09 PM
horizontal rule
337

And should I tell B that, despite her obvious interest in me, I can't date her because of her atrocious cookware? Or should I let her down easy and say I'm just not into blondes?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:14 PM
horizontal rule
338

This thread makes me think of this song.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:17 PM
horizontal rule
339

337: My boyfriend's a better cook than you are, *and* despite his snobbery, he also takes a perverse pride in being able to cook with or on any old shit, so there.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:20 PM
horizontal rule
340

My boyfriend's a better cook than you are

See, I just knew you wouldn't handle rejection well. But anyway, no, no he's not.

he also takes a perverse pride in being able to cook with or on any old shit,

"cook" s/b "sleep"

P.S. I really hope we can still be friends, B.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:24 PM
horizontal rule
341

Snap!


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
342

And not that I'm competing or anything, or that I even, you know, care, but I'd be willing to wager that I've cooked with or on shittier any old shit than he has.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:26 PM
horizontal rule
343

340: LMAO. He'd be the first to admit that cocks are stupid and undiscriminating, but that doesn't mean that he, himself is. And I guaranfuckingtee that he's a better cook than you.

Plus I've just found out that he remembers the first things he said to me both online and in person. I bet you can't do that.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:27 PM
horizontal rule
344

341: The locker room lives!!!


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:27 PM
horizontal rule
345

342: If the gentleman in question were not busily reseducing me, I would so link him to this thread.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:28 PM
horizontal rule
346

333: and a very, very large percentage of blog entries.


Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:29 PM
horizontal rule
347

cocks are stupid and undiscriminating

Ahem.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:29 PM
horizontal rule
348

And I guaranfuckingtee that he's a better cook than you.

Um, how would you know? I have yet to grace you with my sumptious victuals.

Plus I've just found out that he remembers the first things he said to me both online and in person. I bet you can't do that.

Of course I can't. What part of "I want us just to be friends" don't you understand???


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:30 PM
horizontal rule
349

Oh man it's so on.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:31 PM
horizontal rule
350

Okay, M/tch, you're funnier than I am. But that's got nothing to do with my fabulous boyfriend.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:31 PM
horizontal rule
351

I'm so happy for you, B. Maybe now you'll stop pestering me for a shag.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:33 PM
horizontal rule
352

I should set up an iron chef contest. I do love good cooking.

I'm just saying, I know who would win.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:33 PM
horizontal rule
353

Dream on, my friend.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:34 PM
horizontal rule
354

276: Wait, there's an age at which I might no longer be awkward and embarrassed and unsure in these situations?


Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:35 PM
horizontal rule
355

353 to 352.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:35 PM
horizontal rule
356

355: Uh huh, you just keep telling yourself that.

354: You? No.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:36 PM
horizontal rule
357

353: Nice try at recovery, B. It's almost convincing.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:36 PM
horizontal rule
358

357 to 356.1


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
359

Not while you're full of eels, no.

Is LB being dumped?


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:39 PM
horizontal rule
360

Or supplemented?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:41 PM
horizontal rule
361

359: Um, what?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:41 PM
horizontal rule
362

270 to 359.2
288 to 359.2


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:41 PM
horizontal rule
363

Eels or carp, either one.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:42 PM
horizontal rule
364

363: Um, what??


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
365

359 to 356.

Why are you so sensitive? Is there something you need to tell us?


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
366

345: So get off the computer already.


Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
367

I mean 354. 363 to 360.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:44 PM
horizontal rule
368

365: Who does "you" refer too?

And I'm totally not getting the eels/carp reference. Link?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:44 PM
horizontal rule
369

It's all right. <Sniff> I was really just in it for the bread.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:45 PM
horizontal rule
370

368: Eels to me by way of a Monty Python reference.


Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:46 PM
horizontal rule
371

Don't know how the carp got involved, though.


Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:46 PM
horizontal rule
372

366: He's seducing me via the computer; I'm at home with PK sleeping on my shoulder. You'll notice, though, that M/tch is still commenting and I haven't been.

I was really just in it for the bread.

Damn, LB, you are cold.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:47 PM
horizontal rule
373

368: I think Emerson's breaking the Monty Python ban by pointing out that "My H[amilton L]ov[er]craft is full of eels." If that wasn't what he was doing, then my capacity to confabulate false explanations for mysterious comments is in overdrive.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:47 PM
horizontal rule
374

I've got a wallaby for you LB. Low, low price.

Do you want an albino?


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:47 PM
horizontal rule
375

369: I'm confused. How does my polite but firm rejection of B's maneuvering in any way signal that I want to dump LB? I mean, it's not like I'm wearing pyjamas.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:47 PM
horizontal rule
376

What we have here is a failure of communication, which is explained at standpipe's blog. I am at liberty to say that Hamilton Lovecraft is full of eels, and heebie g. has a difficult, tempestuous relationship with carp, sort of like in those old Tennessee Williams thingies.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:48 PM
horizontal rule
377

The carp reference is just to make me curse those blasted fish.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:49 PM
horizontal rule
378

You'll notice, though, that M/tch is still commenting and I haven't been.

Sorry if my incredible rhetorical victory silenced you, B. It doesn't mean I'm not a feminist. And I do still want us to be friends.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:50 PM
horizontal rule
379

YOU PEOPLE ARE NERDS


Posted by: OPINIONATED GRANDMA | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:50 PM
horizontal rule
380

What we have here is a failure of communication,

Some folks you just can't change.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:50 PM
horizontal rule
381

377: Link?

Don't you people know the rules???


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:50 PM
horizontal rule
382

See, I never know how people find old comments.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:51 PM
horizontal rule
383

Rules are for the little people. The last guy to believe that there are rules was Mondale.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
384

Hey heebie.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
385

Confidentially, I never called her OPINIONATED BABY DOLL.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
386

378: Reseduction by cookware related rhetorical victory by proxy seems a little nerdy even for the b household, M/tch


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
387

In the end of the movie we find that to Heebie, the carp was far more than just a fish, and more than a pet in a way that is only hinted at.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:53 PM
horizontal rule
388

378: I'm sorry, M/tch, you'll have to remind me if we've actually met.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:53 PM
horizontal rule
389

This isn't you, is it, OG?


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:54 PM
horizontal rule
390

385: Of course you didn't; that would be sexist.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:55 PM
horizontal rule
391

384: CURSE THOSE FUCKING CARP TO HADES!

Standpipe has a blog?

381 - will any link do?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:55 PM
horizontal rule
392

388: Well, you were pretty blotto. As was I. I only remember because someone showed me a photo afterwards. I do seem to remember that you had a nice personality.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
393

Standpipe has a blog?

Whether I have a blog is explained on my blog, if I have one.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:57 PM
horizontal rule
394

Standpipe has a blog?

The answer to that question can only be found on Standpipe's blog.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:57 PM
horizontal rule
395

DAMMIT.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:58 PM
horizontal rule
396

392: Oh, was this the Unfogged meetup? Which one were you?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:58 PM
horizontal rule
397

I USE MY DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE JOKE THAT STANDPIPE'S BLOG IS A JOKE-EXPLAINING BLOG

N00BS YOU ARE WELCOME


Posted by: OPINIONATED GRANDMA | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:58 PM
horizontal rule
398

Of course you didn't; that would be sexist.

Don't embarrass yourself.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
399

386: What part of "I want us just to be friends" don't you understand???


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
400

If I ever own a boat, I'm totally christening it the Hamilton Lovercraft, and then hitting on women indiscriminately. Signal flags "UP" will be flown.


Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
401

The third or fourth one, I think.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
402

Oh, was this the Unfogged meetup? Which one were you?

I was the one who kept telling you "no".


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:00 PM
horizontal rule
403

400: Won't the eels be offputting? I suppose if you're looking for women who like that sort of thing...


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:01 PM
horizontal rule
404

398: Oh, I have no shame. I'm quite willing to embarrass myself; it doesn't bother me in the slightest.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:01 PM
horizontal rule
405

404: Hey, have you guys heard of Michelle Shocked?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:02 PM
horizontal rule
406

402: I don't remember that happening at all. And no, I wasn't drunk enough to black out. Must've just been you.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:02 PM
horizontal rule
407

400: Every single time I read your name that's what I think it is.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:02 PM
horizontal rule
408

Eels are good for picking up princesses.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:03 PM
horizontal rule
409

Better than tongs?


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:04 PM
horizontal rule
410

Most princesses are too heavy to pick up with tongs, SB.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:05 PM
horizontal rule
411

403: I'm envisioning perhaps a 30-gallon tank with two or three eels in it, so the "full of eels" claim can be merely an exaggeration. I think that probably wouldn't put off too many of the indiscriminate women I'm bringing aboard.


Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:06 PM
horizontal rule
412

A carp or two might entice a certain kind of woman.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
413

If they were truly undiscriminating women, rather than simply indiscriminate, you could have hundreds of eels, thousands of eels, millions and billions and TRILLIONS OF EELS!

Too much Wanda Gag for me today.


Posted by: minneapolitan | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
414

I don't remember that happening at all.

Neither does Anand Jon, B, neither does Anand Jon.

And I am now reminded of another embarrasing incident that evening: you kept picking me in the People, People, People, Kate Beckinsale game, and then running really slowly, trying to force me to catch you.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
415

412: A Tatar, probably.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:10 PM
horizontal rule
416

M/tch, I'm thinking maybe you're confusing that evening with one of your fever-induced hallucinations, yet again.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
417

416: Well that's certainly the pot calling the gleaming white porcelain vase black.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:12 PM
horizontal rule
418

And I would also like to kindly request that you stay at least 50 yards away from my rabbit at all time, B.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
419

Will you two get a room already?


Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
420

Most princesses are too heavy to pick up with tongs, SB.

But tongs are strong, strong enough to carry her. She ain't heavy, she's my princess.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:15 PM
horizontal rule
421

419: Please see 348 and 399.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:15 PM
horizontal rule
422

You know, this is getting really sad. Okay, M/tch, you're right. I've longed for you silently forever. Now that you've rejected me, I am going to cry into my pillow, and pine away anorexically, refusing to eat anything because no food measures up to the imagined culinary delights of your tin-lined copperware cooking.

Now, can we move on?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:15 PM
horizontal rule
423

A true princess is size 3 or 4, like Nancy Reagan. You hardly even need tongs.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:16 PM
horizontal rule
424

M/tch isn't going to take this well.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:17 PM
horizontal rule
425

The thing is that princesses are also willowy, which means tall with big feet. Not to mention the big metal crown and sceptre.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:17 PM
horizontal rule
426

Now, can we move on?

I only hope you can, B.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:17 PM
horizontal rule
427

Sexis...

God, even that's getting boring.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:17 PM
horizontal rule
428

421: Which part of "the M/llsy doth protest too much, methinks" do you not understand?


Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:18 PM
horizontal rule
429

424: Hey, I'm the victim here, John. And it's not like she hasn't said things like 422 before. So I'm hoping she really can move on, but I'm not holding my breath.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:19 PM
horizontal rule
430

Somewhere in the universe there is banter.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:20 PM
horizontal rule
431

428: Oh great. Now Lovecraft has a thing for me too.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:20 PM
horizontal rule
432

Sexis...getting boring.

I'm sorry.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:22 PM
horizontal rule
433

430: true by inference because this is exchange is composed mostly of banter antiparticles.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:23 PM
horizontal rule
434

430: Yeah, over on Tatooine -- they're those big, musk ox-like thingies.


Posted by: minneapolitan | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:24 PM
horizontal rule
435

Antibanter, I should have called it. See, it's even affecting me.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:25 PM
horizontal rule
436

If this is the kind of flirting that leads to romance-free fuckbuddydom, count me out.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:25 PM
horizontal rule
437

Well, we've failed the test.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:25 PM
horizontal rule
438

430: "is" s/b "are" (based on the information in 434.)


Posted by: Clownaesthesiologist | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:25 PM
horizontal rule
439

Somewhere in Banta World, there is Banta.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:26 PM
horizontal rule
440

436: Sweetie, there's no flirting in this thread.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:27 PM
horizontal rule
441

So, what do you think of my footsie pyjamas, B?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:29 PM
horizontal rule
442

440: Oh, this must be one of those reseductions or resections or whatever. Too gruesome for me.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:29 PM
horizontal rule
443

442: No, it's one of those sad desperation grabs.

You're right though, pretty gruesome.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:30 PM
horizontal rule
444

443: Don't be so hard on yourself, B.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:33 PM
horizontal rule
445

The Tasmanian Devil is at risk of going extinct because of a virus. They can eat up to 40% of their body weight in 30 minutes if the opportunity arises. Tasmanian Devils eliminate all traces of a carcass, devouring the bones and fur in addition to the meat and internal organs.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:34 PM
horizontal rule
446

I thought I read where they were shipping some of them to New Zealand or some other non-native habitat to try and find them a new ecological niche?


Posted by: Clownaesthesiologist | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:36 PM
horizontal rule
447

445: Really? That's terribly sad.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:37 PM
horizontal rule
448

Do you see what I mean about flirting with acquaintances? The power it gives to whoever backs out first is insane-making!


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:37 PM
horizontal rule
449

I ♥ my new dutch oven!


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:39 PM
horizontal rule
450

It's made of enameled copper, with a stainless steel core.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:39 PM
horizontal rule
451

What is this if not flirting?


Posted by: Nbarnes | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:39 PM
horizontal rule
452

The do have a few separated populations. They've discouraged exporting them to zoos in the past.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:39 PM
horizontal rule
453

Le Creuset?


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:40 PM
horizontal rule
454

No, Tasmanian Devils.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
455

No, Tasmanian Devils.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
456

No, Tasmanian Devils.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
457

Tasmanian Devils?


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:43 PM
horizontal rule
458

Are you absolutely sure about that, John?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:43 PM
horizontal rule
459

No.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:44 PM
horizontal rule
460

Yes, Tasmanian devils.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:44 PM
horizontal rule
461

No.

FINALLY, A CLEAR SIGNAL. Time to stop flirting with ben, everyone.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:45 PM
horizontal rule
462

Is there some organization freezing tissue samples from endangered species out there? It seems pretty cheap, and considering the pace at which cloning technology is moving, not all that far from being practically useful. I'd think that'd be an area where a couple of million dollars now would look like a wonderful investment fifty years down the road.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:48 PM
horizontal rule
463

LB, you have your issue now.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:49 PM
horizontal rule
464

Yeah, the poor old Devils. It's a horrible disease, too: it causes them to grow a big facial tumor that makes it impossible for them to do anything.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:49 PM
horizontal rule
465

I think I've heard that such a thing is being done, but I don't have a cite.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:49 PM
horizontal rule
466

Most of the banter in the universe is impervious to ordinary modes of detection. The composition of this so-called "dark banter" is unknown, and may even include new fundamental reparticles distinct from the standard persiflons and badinons.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:50 PM
horizontal rule
467

SB, I know you're the joke person around here, but we were trying to have a serious discussion for once.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:51 PM
horizontal rule
468

465: I thought so too, but nothing obvious popped up on the first page or two of google results. There's some pork I'd be happy to pay for.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:52 PM
horizontal rule
469

466: maybe the problem with this thread is too much Irish?


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:52 PM
horizontal rule
470

462: Honestly, what would be the fucking point? Most of them are going extinct because of habitat loss; it's not like that's going to reverse itself.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:52 PM
horizontal rule
471

SB, I know you're the joke person around here, but we were trying to have a serious discussion for once.

I'm new here, and I don't give a fuck.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:52 PM
horizontal rule
472

They were holding out OK before the virus, and staving off the invasive red foxes.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:54 PM
horizontal rule
473

467: (pedantic assholery predacted)


Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:54 PM
horizontal rule
474

470: After the Great Upheaval, when the only people left alive are white anglophones in stylish jumpsuits in living in a handful of sterile white polymer cities, there will be plenty of habitat in which to install Tasmanian Clone Devils.


Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:56 PM
horizontal rule
475

We seem to be at wit's end.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:56 PM
horizontal rule
476

474: Remove one word for improved parsing.


Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:57 PM
horizontal rule
477

475: Oh, I think I've still got half left.


Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:58 PM
horizontal rule
478

They're really good with cadavers. I'm wondering whether the funeral industry could market Devil funerals to Wiccans and Greens.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:58 PM
horizontal rule
479

474: If the Tasmanian Devil Clones have any sense, they'll cannibalize themselves when they see the polymer cities.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:58 PM
horizontal rule
480

470: Habitat loss can reverse itself -- look what happened to white-tailed deer in the US. They used to be rare, and now they're like rats. And something that kills species that get down to a tiny population is loss of genetic diversity -- if you had a tiny still-existing population, with some reasonable habitat, being able to pull a couple hundred genetically diverse individuals out of a bank would be awfully useful.

You're right that habitat loss is the big problem, but that doesn't make genetic preservation pointless. It's no solution by itself, but it'd be pretty cheap, and if the habitat problem gets solved, it might come in very handy.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 8:59 PM
horizontal rule
481

474: Logan's Rabbit Run?


Posted by: Nbarnes | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:00 PM
horizontal rule
482

Angstrom! Ha!


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:01 PM
horizontal rule
483

478: No, to Parsis. Aren't they in terrible funeral trouble for lack of vultures?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:02 PM
horizontal rule
484

What I mean is, John Updike is a brilliant genius.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:02 PM
horizontal rule
485

482: Thus are the banter and small furry creature subcomponents of this thread reconnected.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:03 PM
horizontal rule
486

Parsis too, but I think that also have a thing of keeping cadavers off the ground. Vultures represent the air, and earth, fire and water are unprofaned.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:03 PM
horizontal rule
487

484: Oh. Dear.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:03 PM
horizontal rule
488

Honestly, what would be the fucking point? Most of them are going extinct because of habitat loss; it's not like that's going to reverse itself.

Aaaaarrgh. Not true.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:03 PM
horizontal rule
489

So we strap the Devils into hanggliders. Problem solved.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:04 PM
horizontal rule
490

SB is just baiting me. It's too late at night.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:04 PM
horizontal rule
491

484: Oh. Dear.

You don't think so? He's one of my favorite feminist writers.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:06 PM
horizontal rule
492

489: http://www.xkcd.com/c20.html


Posted by: Nbarnes | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:07 PM
horizontal rule
493

look what happened to white-tailed deer in the US. They used to be rare, and now they're like rats.

It is my extremely vague understand that this is due to: a) elimination of natural predators (the only one left is the automobile) and b) increase in food supply (all those fancy ornamental shrubs).

But I'm talking out my hat here.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:07 PM
horizontal rule
494

Okay, well, I'm feeling cynical and queasy today. Ignore me.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:07 PM
horizontal rule
495

Most of the banter in the universe is impervious to ordinary modes of detection

Your banter is intelligent and most witty.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:08 PM
horizontal rule
496

natural predators (the only one left is the automobile)

New fuel source?


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:08 PM
horizontal rule
497

489 was awesome, and the combination of it and 492 is about the best thing ever.


Posted by: Clownaesthesiologist | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:08 PM
horizontal rule
498

Turkeys are coming back too. A friend of mine saw 17 of them at her bird feeder, which was not prepared for 17 15-lb birds.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:09 PM
horizontal rule
499

~500


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:10 PM
horizontal rule
500

493: Some of it is the conversion of farmland to woods or suburban planting -- there's just more deer-suitable land now on the East Coast than there was in 1900. Habitat loss is reversible.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:10 PM
horizontal rule
501

500!


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:10 PM
horizontal rule
502

491 renders 490 superfluous, thank god.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:10 PM
horizontal rule
503

Oh well.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:12 PM
horizontal rule
504

492 is absolutely awesome. That is a fine, fine webcomic.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:12 PM
horizontal rule
505

492 is sad.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:13 PM
horizontal rule
506

505: How do you handle things such as that that make you sad? I'm curious.


Posted by: Nbarnes | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:16 PM
horizontal rule
507

Updike was the Keillor of his day.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:16 PM
horizontal rule
508

Life is pain.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:16 PM
horizontal rule
509

I should have said, was an important influence on Keillor and anticipated many of his themes.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:17 PM
horizontal rule
510

Anyone who says differently is selling something.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:18 PM
horizontal rule
511

Writing about honkies who never do anything is hard, you know. I've tried.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:18 PM
horizontal rule
512

The secret is to make your characters fictional. It opens up more possibilities.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:20 PM
horizontal rule
513

Authors of unusual sexism? I don't believe they exist.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:21 PM
horizontal rule
514

The choice between realism and art is a stark one in this case. I thought the unicorn gimmick sucked big time.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:23 PM
horizontal rule
515

You mean The Centaur? I liked that book.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:24 PM
horizontal rule
516

Roth is my favorite sexist author.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:24 PM
horizontal rule
517

Too much information, Ned.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:24 PM
horizontal rule
518

It's made of enameled copper, with a stainless steel core.

Um, what? Surely no such thing exists?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:24 PM
horizontal rule
519

the unicorn gimmick

That was by Robert Ludlum, right?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:25 PM
horizontal rule
520

It's possible that I meant The Centaur.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:26 PM
horizontal rule
521

507: Yeah, and?

516: Mine's Pope.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:30 PM
horizontal rule
522

518: YHBT, YHL, HAND.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:32 PM
horizontal rule
523

522: Um, what? Decoding, please?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:35 PM
horizontal rule
524

You have been trolled, you have lost, have a nice day.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:37 PM
horizontal rule
525

506: What do you mean? I think "oh no, sad!" And sometimes I make a little sad face.

And I invest hours and fucking hours in shit like mouse husbandry to deal with the cannibalistic little fucker in their midst, and in doctoring mice with quarter-inch fucking holes in their skin (now, amazingly, recovering well it seems), and then more hours in making sure that the now isolated cannibalistic little fucker isn't lonely in her isolation.

Oh, and Micky didn't have surgery but god knows how, somehow her apparent tumor seems to be getting much smaller.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:41 PM
horizontal rule
526

524: No, ben, you're the one who has been trolled. And you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:41 PM
horizontal rule
527

1.) Bright, sarcastic, poor women with embarrassing families get to marry multi-millionaires.

This is why "Pride and Prejudice" was one of my favorite novels growing up. It still gives me a bit of hope that having an embarrassing family doesn't preclude a decent marriage.

I suspect that I'm totally incapable of enjoying the fuck buddy relationship.

I'm pretty hard hearted about the kind of person I'd be willing to marry, but I'm an incurable romantic at the same time.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:56 PM
horizontal rule
528

Late, but eels, eels, and carp.

Night, all.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 9:59 PM
horizontal rule
529

I liked 513


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:02 PM
horizontal rule
530

Heh. That second photo is beautiful; the third one made me laugh.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:02 PM
horizontal rule
531

I need some advice about how to deal with a shy guy whom I like very much and who, I think, likes me. I've made a fair number of moves, but I've gotten mixed signals.

He's the sweet and sensitive type. I get the feeling that he is simultaneously afraid of a relationship (because his breakup with his ex was pretty traumatic) and looking to get married and start a family.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
532

Is he in possession of a large fortune?


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:06 PM
horizontal rule
533

531 - You can always write in to Ask the Mineshaft. Won't get posted right now, though, because I'm going to bed. Might get you better results than asking on a thread that's already 500+ comments.


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:07 PM
horizontal rule
534

(And, of course, my selfish desire to not have the site break)


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:07 PM
horizontal rule
535

525: Sometimes that kind of melancholy triggers depressive ideation in me. Thus the question.


Posted by: Nbarnes | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:09 PM
horizontal rule
536

Huh. It's "good fortune." And recently I got "love's light wings" wrong. I should just stop.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:09 PM
horizontal rule
537

535: Ah. No, I'm on meds, dude. Yay meds!


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:11 PM
horizontal rule
538

Well, I wasn't planning to go through the whole thing now at 12 AM. I'm heading off to bed anyway. I was just letting everyone know that I will probably be asking at some point, and teo's presence reminded me.

I kind of like asking questions deep within the comments, since it seems less googleable and less likely to be foudn accidentally.

I will now stop commenting on this thread to avoid breaking the site.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:14 PM
horizontal rule
539

CharleyCarp is Dave Grohl!


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:14 PM
horizontal rule
540

538: I don't care about breaking the site.

How long ago was his traumatic breakup?

Iis your relationship with him such that you can just say "Hey, do you want to go out sometime? Like, on a date? I mean with me?"



Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:24 PM
horizontal rule
541

515 and 519 get two thumbs up. One thumb for each.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:26 PM
horizontal rule
542

Unbreak my site!


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:27 PM
horizontal rule
543

Say you'll load it again.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:30 PM
horizontal rule
544

530 gets it exactly right.

But, what kind of eels are those? I've never seen them that color. They look a lot like ribbon fish to me.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:32 PM
horizontal rule
545

Tis better to have commented and lost than never to have commented at all.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:33 PM
horizontal rule
546

Wow, those are some great photos in Charley's photostream.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:35 PM
horizontal rule
547

530 gets it exactly right.

M/tch, will you stop following me around?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:38 PM
horizontal rule
548

Oh, was 530 by you?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:39 PM
horizontal rule
549

Say, did you hear the one about the cockatoo and the Cadbury Creme Eggs?


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:39 PM
horizontal rule
550

Tis better to have commented and lost than never to have commented at all.

However.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:41 PM
horizontal rule
551

548: Go to bed.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:41 PM
horizontal rule
552

549: No.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:41 PM
horizontal rule
553

551: You left off "Let's", B. But seriously, I like you, but I don't want to sleep with you.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:42 PM
horizontal rule
554

Except: no more unfogged happy fun page.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:43 PM
horizontal rule
555

554 to 550


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:43 PM
horizontal rule
556

So w/d, did you hear the one about the cockatoo and the Cadbury Creme Eggs?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:47 PM
horizontal rule
557

Except: no more unfogged happy fun page.

However.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:49 PM
horizontal rule
558

Yes, on this week's Wait Wait Don't Tell Me.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:51 PM
horizontal rule
559

But you can read about it here.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:51 PM
horizontal rule
560

553: I'm in bed, already, keeping PK "company" because neither he nor I are feeling all that good, actually. With him, me, and the cat, I don't think there's enough room up here on the top bunk for you. Sorry.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:52 PM
horizontal rule
561

557: You bring back bad memories.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:53 PM
horizontal rule
562

I'm in bed, already, keeping PK "company" because neither he nor I are feeling all that good, actually.

Did you change into pyjamas?


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:57 PM
horizontal rule
563

Change into? I never got out of 'em today. But they're not the footie ones; it's been too warm here lately.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:58 PM
horizontal rule
564

Scare quotes? Is that the bphd "humor" I keep hearing about?


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 10:59 PM
horizontal rule
565

If you keep mocking me, I may barf on you. Or perhaps crap. I haven't decided which yet.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:02 PM
horizontal rule
566

"Company" is a direct quote; it's what PK says when he's feeling clingy.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:03 PM
horizontal rule
567

Okay, yeah, so, Tasmanian devils. Know what's cute about Tasmanian Devils? The sounds they make.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 04-15-07 11:30 PM
horizontal rule
568

They sound like wookies on helium.


Posted by: Nbarnes | Link to this comment | 04-16-07 1:43 AM
horizontal rule
569

I think that we should have a special Updike-Keillor-Roth thread for B.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 04-16-07 8:00 AM
horizontal rule