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.

It's the title element.

The headline is really strange. I saw it yesterday, assumed it was about a designer who designed clothes in some way that was particularly convenient or comfortable for his models, and passed it by. However, I can see it being in the Style section because it is about the fashion industry, and that is where it is covered. At least it is not this weeks Modern Love column.

I could almost see an investigative piece about risks of sexual assault to models generally being in the Style section; that would be about the fashion industry. A story about an accused rapist and his victims, though, really seems as if it should either be news or not news -- it's not about the fashion industry, it's about this guy.

it's not about the fashion industry, it's about this guy

Well yes and no. His defense seems to be the casting couch defense. The women slept with him willingly (more or less) because they wanted to get modeling jobs (not sure how this gets him out of the statutory rape charges). Or, of course, less charitably, here is an egregious example of how powerful people in the modeling exploit vulnerable would-be models.

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

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

What on earth is a story about a designer who's been accused of rape by a number of models, some underage, doing in the Style Section?

When an athlete is accused of a crime, isn't the article usually in the Sports section?

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

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

Because rape is in fashion again, after a long period of killjoy PC Puritanism? Rape is the new [something]. After all, these women make their living off their yayas and goodies.

6: Holy shit, it's Ogged.

My first thought (reading the post -- haven't read the story) was that the implication of heterosexuality on the part of a designer made this a man bites dog story. This isn't the most enlightened thought even held . . .

5: I'll bet he tries to get out of the stat. rape charges by contending all models look much younger than they are and he had no reason to believe he was dealing with jail-bait.

(The headline is goofy but I don't see what's so strange about it appearing in Style. That's the place for bold-faced names to be included in the comprehensive up-against-the-wall list, right?)

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

he had no reason to believe he was dealing with jail-bait.

This is outside my area of expertise (I am happy to say) but I think that in most (maybe all) jurisdictions, this is no defense. Statutory rape is, I am pretty sure, one of those crimes where there is no intent requirement for an important element (the age of the under-age party).

16: I found this:

Mistake of Fact

Although statutory rape was historically a strict-liability crime, California now recognizes a defense where the perpetrator "participates in a mutual act of sexual intercourse, believing his partner to be beyond the age of consent, with reasonable grounds for such belief." People v. Hernandez, 39 Cal. Rptr. 361, 364 (1964). This acceptance coincided with the raising of the age of consent. Accordingly, the crime of committing lewd or lascivious acts with a child under the age of 14, Cal. Pen. Code § 288(a), remains a strict-liability offense.

at a criminal defense firm's site:

http://www.criminalattorney.com/pages/firm_articles_statutory_rape_california.htm

Meanwhile, is anyone else a bit bothered by all those shadowy conspiracies going after celebrities and wannabees? Being rich and famous requires courage.

Semi-relatedly, discussion this morning with rfts about Tom Friedman's Big Stupid Magazine Cover Story has led to the conclusion that Friedman is the Jackie Harvey of international affairs.

To some he is a garden variety arriviste, an overeager cad, who crossed the line into criminal territory when his sense of entitlement overwhelmed his good sense. To others he is a struggling design talent, who played by the same elastic set of rules that govern everything else in the celebrity world and fashion industry -- except he was caught.

Distinction? Difference?

and what on earth is his lawyer doing suggesting that he can't be expected to turn down predatory fourteen year olds?

Ogged could never swim in that hair

Duh. Ogged swims in a pool.

Might I throw out there that, if a guy is famous, reasonably good-looking, and powerful in your industry, any consensual sex with him would be something one would brag about? There's no incentive to claiming a guy like this raped you, especially in an industry where everyone will accuse you of doing it to get ahead or being naive about your job, which is selling your body. Therefore, I conclude that he is probably very guilty.

And besides, in the stat. rape cases, can there be any defense other than "I didn't touch her?" I thought "I didn't know she was 13" was not valid in court.

"Why would she change into pajamas?" asked Mr. Richards, Mr. Jon's lawyer.

What? Changing into pajamas is the universal sign that I am not going to have sex with you. Yoga pants and a T-shirt means "We're just friends tonight."

I don't get the impression that he's actually powerful in the fashion industry in the slightest. He's a skanky, tiny poser who presents profoundly uninspiring designs consisting of silk skirts with muscle tees.

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

Ogged's message with the hair is "I don't need to cut me hair to beat you". (Costly signaling.) Of course, he races mostly with 70-year-olds.

TWB is complicated. Step One: Look ready to kill her. Step Two: say something sort of cool instead. Step Three: Decide whether what she's wearing counts as pajamas. (If possible, destroy all nearby pajamas during Step One or Two).

I'm sure that there are many more steps, culminating with the stickleback staple, #17, "Stand on your head and waggle your butt".

Yoga pants and a T-shirt means "We're just friends tonight."

I wish someone had told me this earlier.

12: What about the defense that you didn't sleep with her because she was 13? (I kind of need a fast answer on this.)

The nice thing about 14 year olds is that a guy with a car and an apartment is rich, and McDonalds or KFC is a date.

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

I think the pajamas thing is fairly universal. If you're trying to get laid, you don't put clothes on.

What bothers me about a lot of discussions of rape is that the accused almost always says that her signals were hard to read, and you can't blame a guy for trying, etc. But when you're already in a private, vulnerable situation, her giving all these crazy, nebulous female signs like "I don't want to have sex with you" is really all the no anyone needs. Has he never been with a willing partner? Willing partners are pretty clear about their intent.

I don't know what the law considers sufficiently coercive to count as rape, but the dude is certainly guilty of something. What utter sleaze.

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

32: Rage is not the turn-on, actually, John; it's the cold, steady stare of someone you can imagine pulling a trigger. My ex Max had the face of an Army general who'd taken up Buddhism. One guy I slept with turned up a few months later in special ops with the FBI. That weird inner stillness is mystifying to me.

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

On the "How could I have known what kind of signals she was sending front", I figure any man not actually brain damaged gets, at the very, very most, one horrible tragic mistake. At the absolute outside limit, the first time someone went to the police over what he claimed was consensual sex, he needed to become very, very cautious (like, looking for indications of enthusiasm, maybe, here's a crazy idea, talking with prospective partners about whether they want to have sex with him?) Anyone this kind of crap happens twice to is a rapist.

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

This guy reminds me somewhat of the hairdresser I had when I first moved to NYC. He got into the business because he was really into women. He said he loved his job because he could tell gorgeous women how beautiful they were every day and it wasn't harassment. He was extremely flattering. I fell for it, briefly, but I got out of it as soon as I could. I got the sense that he wasn't used to being told no.

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

18 -- score another hit against the sanctity of off-blog communications. I started reading that article without seeing the author's name and about a paragraph in was just overwhelmed by a creeping miasma of lameness.

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

Is there an exception for provocative lingerie?

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

38: The thousand-yard stare is different. AWB is, I think, referring to the human equivalent of the body language of cats of all sizes, and especially the "I'm thinking that just might be prey over there" mode.

42: Is there something between the two?

500-yard stare?

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

30/41: Women of my acquaintance who are prone to feeling cold in any month except August would disagree with that; they're always going to put pajamas on, and their partners are prohibited from interpreting that as sexual disinterest.

I know that I was going over to a woman's apartment over the course of several weeks, eventually leading to sex, but I can't remember whether she was wearing yoga pants on the nights when we actually did have sex.

Are those things actually comfortable, by the way?

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

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

Yeah, I was just going to say that pajamas might not be a universal code. There are all kinds of dating subcultures and idiosyncracies, and pajamas might be interpreted differently bt different people.

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

There is. And it might be entertaining to replay the whole male fear of accusations of date rape discussion, but really, whatever went on, and whether it met the technical definition of rape in any or all circumstances, (1) 31 gets it right and (2) this is not about relationships.

Even in ambiguously sexual situations, "willing partners" often feel embarrassed or silly about being too forward or too clear in their intent, particularly the younger they are.

In the past I've interpreted the putting on of pajamas as a sign that says "I am comfortable with you and therefore I am likely to go to bed soon, perhaps with you. I am also taking off my clothes with you in the house, and putting on other clothes which will be more easy to take off if intimacy begins to occur." In other words, as signalling willingness. The signal of non-willingness would be keeping the original clothes on. Not everyone is as forward as AWB, or as impervious to cold.

The only time someone has started getting unclothed in a previously "ambiguously sexual" situation it was a girl who was more or less completely neutral as to whether sex occurred, had no expectation of enjoying it, but figured that she would be returning me a favor by allowing me to have sex with her. This was not very alluring.

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

There's that Chappelle Show piece about the white family and the black family who swap dads (both played by Chappelle) for a TV show, and the white father makes a point of keeping his pajamas on while having sex with the black mom.

Yes, there's no controversy over whether Anand Jon is a predatory douchebag. 35 gets it right.

On a related note, I am assuming that "yoga pants" is a euphemism for "sweatpants".

Finally, I should make it clear that the woman in 52.2 was an unmedicated bipolar type and therefore her unpredictable, seemingly awesome actions were more likely to inspire nervousness than enthusiasm in other people.

43: John has it right, only I think the pros think in meters and "klicks" now, so that would be about a 546.806649168853893 yard stare.

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

I'd actually kind of agree with the "Changing into pyjamas isn't an unambiguous no", but it's a no-ish enough sort of signal to require an affirmative yes or expression of enthusiam to override it. And it really doesn't go with the 'casting couch' defense: "I couldn't help it, your Honor, these insatiable women were changing into t-shirts and sweatpants. What's a man supposed to do?" That's not a "I'll do anything to get my modelling career started, Mr. Jon," </sexy purr> story.

I just wanted to point out that AWB is generalizing from herself too much in 23/30. But her sins, of course, pale by comparison with Anand Jon's. Whether or not he is Bangladeshi.

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

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

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

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

QED.

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

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

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

I think you're on to something with 67.

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

she wants to have sex with herself

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

I think there may be ambiguity on the pajamas thing -- it might signify differently in a "dating" culture or an "informal hookup" culture. As someone who can't afford to formally "date" and who generally moves in circles with women in similar situations, I could read pajamas as a signal of "I'm not going anywhere for a while" or "I'm comfortable around you."

But you couldn't possibly read it as "No further discussion is necessary -- fuck me now." Suddenly getting naked could plausibly be read to mean "Fuck me now", to the point that if that wasn't the intended meaning, the man involved could justifiably be a little confused. (Not to the point of ignoring a clear subsequent 'no', of course, but to the point where a clear 'no' might reasonably be necessary to straighten matters out.) Appearing in sexy lingerie? Similar.

Getting into a t-shirt and sweatpants doesn't make any sense as a signal stronger than "Cuddling might possibly happen, and we'll see where we go from there."

"Yerroner, she put on yoga pants, so I was trying to put on her yoga pants too."

("If she touches her nose, you touch your (

52:
"I am also taking off my clothes with you in the house, and putting on other clothes which will be more easy to take off if intimacy begins to occur." In other words, as signalling willingness. The signal of non-willingness would be keeping the original clothes on.

This.

Changing clothes with another in the house is a sign of comfort and intimacy, whether of a sexual variety or not.

The nature of the clothing is not particularly important, though I will say that since I don't wear pajamas except in very rare circumstances, putting some on (probably flannel) would indeed signal something. I imagine changing into the grungiest, baggiest sweats one owns would also signal something.

I understand AWB's steely stare fascination.

Dang, I don't know what html code I unwittingly stumbled upon there. It was an arrow pointing to the word "your". I was trying to quote Life in Hell,

"If she touches her nose, you touch your (left-arrow important!) nose. This shows that you're all in sync with the universe or something."

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

I would say that the pajamas thing might signal more strongly in the "hook-up" culture than in dating since the former is less strongly biased toward raw sex appeal -- sex isn't some kind of endgame in a contrived seduction scenario. If I was just "hanging out" (with some hint of sexual possibilities) at a woman's house, I'd be a little taken aback if she put on sexy lingerie -- it would seem really out of context.

76: Heh, in some circles, true. And here's my steely stare indicating that I'm on another planet, surveying yours, and don't even try to figure out why I'm half-clothed. I just went swimming nekkid, okay? Do you play guitar?

Obviously a standardized code needs to be developed and taught in the schools. Once it was fully disseminated it could be recognized by the legal system.

"Your Honor, everyone who went to ninth grade knows...."

My thoughts on this: there is no such thing as pajama consent, and even if she is a hot fourteen year old, your dick will not fall off if you pause to get verbal consent, and if you're trying to hire her, don't you know her age?

From the Times' T:Style Magazine, a piece on a supposed new craze for commissioning nude portraits of oneself in late pregnancy: "When they're not blogging incessantly about their expanding bump on MommyBuzz.com, they're exposing it for all the world to see. The bovinely pregnant are now demanding the full Demi Moore treatment, in what is quickly becoming a seventh-month rite of passage." Say, fuck you!

77, 79: I can feel myself getting humorless here, and of course no one actually posting in this thread misunderstands this. But. No, we don't need to teach an unambiguous system of 'signals' to anyone in ninth grade, and no, having confused 'changing into pyjamas' with 'consent to intercourse' isn't any kind of valid excuse for forcing unwanted sex on someone, whatever your culture.

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

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

Whoops. Not an intended Britishism, just bad spelling.

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

82: Just so you know, my idea of a signal for consent to sex is a literal consent to sex. Even if the woman sits on the couch, tantalizingly, in sweatpants and an old t-shirt.

It's complicated, though, when a woman wears yoga pants that have "Yes I want to have sex" written on the ass.

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

"piece on a supposed new craze for commissioning nude portraits of oneself in late pregnancy: "

Done correctly, those can be amazing, tasteful portraits.

Done incorrectly, she looks like trailer trash.

I have an ex who is an amazing black and white photographer.

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

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

88:

Do you prefer "Big as a house?"

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

Is this related to the pregnant thread?

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

No, we don't need to teach an unambiguous system of 'signals' to anyone in ninth grade, and no, having confused 'changing into pyjamas' with 'consent to intercourse' isn't any kind of valid excuse for forcing unwanted sex on someone, whatever your culture.

I think you have the analysis wrong here.

Imagine the following counter-scenario. A young woman flies down to LA at sleazy-guy's expense, knowing that the plan is for her to spend the night in his apartment. When she gets there, she changes into a t-shirt and yoga pants and parks herself on his bed. She says nothing. Cuddling, kissing and intercourse ensue.

The next day, she claims she was raped because she did not actually consent (even though she did not voice any refusal and participated without dissent). Most people, I would suggest, would say that the circumstances were such that an unexpressed--whether by word or deed--lack of consent is not sufficient to make this rape. When you agree to spend the night at a guys apartment in his bedroom, unless you say otherwise, it is not unreasonable to think that the sex was consensual absent some other evidence of lack of consent.

What makes all the difference was that she claims to have said no. At that point, even if she was naked and had spent the last hour making out with the guy, it's rape if he goes further. That is the problem here, not the signals sent or not sent by yoga pants.

And yes, in 9th grade, kids should be taught that particular signal.

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

. That is the problem here, not the signals sent or not sent by yoga pants.

And yes, in 9th grade, kids should be taught that particular signal.

The yoga pant signal? Which signal? Signals are hard, and the worst group to be teaching signals to teenagers are their parents because their parents aren't currently dating other teenagers. E.g., calaparents trying to determine what is 'goth' or that whole scandal about blowjobs which seems to exist mostly in the minds of Law and Order producers.

Best, I think, that instruction should focus on the unambiguous stuff: no means no, your dick won't fall off if you don't get laid, and if you're not sure, stop because your dick really won't fall off, and girls like sex, so she'll let you know if you shouldn't be stopping.

Experience will help them get the signals right much better than their parents trying to say that yoga pants and cuddling on the bed probably mean it's consensual, except when it's not.

Which signal?

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

The entire talk of signals cued by wardrobe is misguided. I'm reminded by the mention some time back of dangly earrings signalling availability.

I was bemused by that talk earlier in this thread. Thought: y'all are all over the place. Pajamas, what?

Clothed, unclothed, steely- or sleepy-eyed, there are no rules to be adduced about these things.

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

What is that message?

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

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

The entire talk of signals indicates that IMX nothing has changed since the mid-fifties, and a whole new approach is needed. How about fluorescent paddles with "Fuck Me" on one side and "Go Around Again" on the other, modeled after the ones used on aircraft carriers?

Wait, there are Unfogged t-shirts now?

Why wasn't I informed?

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

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

Paddles? That is brilliant.

I think I heard something about fingernail polish. Green polish means that they are willing to go all the way!

Black nail polish means BACK THE F-OFF!

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

103: not paddles to signify sexual consent or otherwise. Naval signal flags.

Possibilities include:

B - I am carrying dangerous goods
D - I am manoeuvring with difficulty
H - I have a pilot on board
L - Stop; I have something important to communicate to you
Q - This vessel is free of infectious disease
T - I am engaged in trawling
U - You are standing into danger
X - Stop carrying out your intentions and watch for my signals

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

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

OK, so it's settled, changing into, out of, or through pajamas carries no specific message whatsoever about sex. Unless they're footie pajamas, in which case it carries the message "are you really, really that creepy?"

Represented with Navy Flags, this message looks like Mickey Mouse ears.

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

the worst group to be teaching signals to teenagers are their parents because their parents aren't currently dating other teenagers. E.g., calaparents

They're really going to enjoy it when you go to college, Cala.

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

G - Your nose is too low. Pull up.

XJ. That sounds like a winner.

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

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

OMG, he IS Ogged.

After scanning the 157-page PDF, it looks like very few of them would actually send an encouraging signal to a prospective partner.

C = Yes.
QG = You should go ahead.
BB = You may alight on my deck.
BB1 = You may alight on my deck; I am ready to receive you forward.
BB2 = You may alight on my deck; I am ready to receive you amidship.
BB3 = You may alight on my deck; I am ready to receive you aft.
BM = You should parachute object to windward.
FO = I will keep close to you.
FO1 = I will keep close to you during the night.
IN = I require a diver.
CB6 = I request immediate assistance; I am on fire.
JN = You should beach the vessel in...(followed by coordinates)
LI1 = Increase speed.
LX = The canal is clear.
LX2 = You can enter the canal at time indicated.
PR1 = You should come as near as possible.
RI = There is good holding ground in my area.
UP = Permission to enter harbor is urgently requested. I have an emergency case.
MAB = I request you to make rendezvous in position indicated.
US6 = Nothing can be done until tugs have arrived.
TN = In what direction, distance and depth does your fishing gear extend?

As far as the original signals discussion, I think guys are really more worried about missing a "yes" signal than they are about missing a "no" signal. AWB's interpretation might lead to the former problem.

That really isn't relevant to the daterape story here at all, where there were unambiguous signals. It specifically references the TWB pajama code.

Unless they're footie pajamas, in which case it carries the message "are you really, really that creepy?"

Mr. B. kinda digs my fuzzy footie pajamas.

95: Sure, kids should know that no means no by ninth grade. Or, actually, by the time they're old enough to talk. The issue here, though, is what should *adults* be taught? I submit that the answer is they should be taught that little girls behaving as if they're at a slumber party /= an invitation.

YZ = The words which follow are in plain language

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

OMG, thanks for that site! Mine look like the second pair, the one the guy is wearing. B/c I bought them in the Target boys' department.

I reiterate.

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

121: Honest to god, the answer here is to say, cutely, "are we flirting?" Or, as a very hot redheaded pathologist once said to me, "I'm a little drunk, but I'm pretty sure I'm picking up some major chemistry here."

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

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

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

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

Dude, the ass-flap comes in handy.

128: So what you mean is "ZA 1".
130: Those pajamas send the message "PK".

This signal flag stuff is a ton of fun, I might post all my comments in it from now on.

134.2: Them's fighting words, my friend.

Okay, the freakiest thing yet: from the description on the Poker-jammies-for-dudes page: "One of our hottest sellers!!!"

133: How is this not creepy on some level?

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

128: That would be a variety of the "make the subtext explicit" option, which does seem to be the best choice in most such situations but which people also seem oddly reluctant to go for. I suspect this is because it removes all possible ambiguity, which can be comforting if one is unsure enough about interpreting signals and concerned enough about avoiding embarrassment to worry about this in the first place.

95 and 121 both seem perfectly reasonable -- my only point with regard to the changing-into-yoga-pants bit is that, while there are nonverbal behaviors that would legitimately be quite confusing if not meant to indicate consent to sex, and which might reasonably require explicit verbal explanation to straighten everyone's expectations out, changing into yoga pants is not such a behavior.

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

138 to 137

Heh.

Seriously. You change into yoga pants after a long trip because you're tired and smelly and want to be comfortable.

Christ. Here's a very easy rule for the dude's lawyer: don't fuck fourteen-year-olds.

114: I bet they'll miss me! And make my room into a shrine!

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

140: I skipped those comments. Bo-ring.

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

The bar is not dangerous.

I will keep close to you.
You should come as near as possible.
I will keep close to you during the night.

The canal is clear.

I am going ahead.
You should go ahead.
You should go full speed ahead.
You should go slow ahead.
You should keep going ahead.
I will go ahead dead slow.

I am going ahead, follow me.
I will not follow you.
I have lost sight of you.
What is the course to reach you?

I cannot save my vessel.
I am abandoning my vessel.

I cannot steer without assistance.

(Unused: "you should not discharge oil or oily mixture.".)

I rarely need to take just a dump, with no urination involved. In fact, I will go out on a limb and say that a dump in isolation has never happened. EVER!

137 to 145

146 has made my afternoon.

138: This is pretty much exactly right, and boy do people need to get over it. (Not that I myself did, back in the day). Being willing to talk about what you think is going on/want to go on explicitly is terribly useful in terms of avoiding unpleasant misunderstandings.

144: U, QH. OJ 1

149 - "146" s/b "120"

146 is surprisingly pretty.

147: The ass-flap works for both, if you're a girl. Though even sans ass-flap, there's this little trick where you unzip down to about the knee and simply pull one side around the back to the opposite hip, rather than having to yank the entire damn thing of and sit there naked and shivering.

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

153: But then you would be cold.

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

145: One problem at a time, yo.

Beefo Meaty thinks you're a creepy perv, apo.

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

157: I know he is.

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.

160: Do I not bleed?

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?

161: MNX

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

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

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

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

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

162: "Central heating?"

We here in far-off California have no concept of such a strange invention.

Or possibly the B's have an outhouse?

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

162: Central heating be damned! Global warming, baby! I'm saving the earth with my footie pjs! (Also our house in Canada LACKED INSULATION IN THE BRICK WALLS and, when we took the bedroom wallpaper down to paint, we found there was a HOLE IN THE WALL behind the head of the bed. In other words, our fucking house was that fucking cold. So there.)

165: Not yet menopausal, fyi. In fact I am probably ovulating AS I TYPE; hence my giddy mood.

Don't ovulate on the keyboard.

170: Seriously, the robot isn't any more expensive than a good vacuum cleaner. And it's so cute! Plus it freaks out the cat!

152: there's this little trick which sounds like a good way to give money to the orthopedic surgeons. What's the YouTube URL?

151: Ned, I'm perfectly willing to give you some credit but 146 is brilliant.

171.2 could be better expressed as "TD 1"

Re: boy do people need to get over it.
and
you are obviously not nearly shy or insecure enough for this to even be a concern.

They're both true. Maintaining such complete ambiguity as to be able to plausibly deny romantic intent is, frankly, pretty juvenile (and in some cases downright manipulative). But there's a long way between that and flirtatious frankness such as B. is recommending. I can't be the only one who likes the "step-forward, wait-for-the-other-to-step-forward, repeat" pattern, right? I mean, it's sexy. You're building intimacy.

And, as an added bonus, if somebody doesn't step foward to meet you, you aren't out ten steps out there on a limb by yourself. Just one step.

You have to make yourself a little vulnerable, lest you end up with multiple stories along the lines of Ideal's (non-)footrub episode.

173: I would get one just to freak out my cat, had I the cash and the ability to pick up clutter off of the floor. I need a robot to organize my paperwork.

You have to make yourself a little vulnerable

See, this is the problem right here.

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

and the ability to pick up clutter off of the floor.

This is really the secret to the robot vacuum: like forcing you to clean up before the maid arrives, basically.

176: Part of the reason one goes the frank route is because it punctures the anxiety of the knowing-not-knowing. Alas, it does preemptively end the fun of the dance, but it's not just the shy people who find the ambiguity excurciating. SO THERE.

Speaking of headlines:

ATTACK OF THE KILLER LESBIANS

"Next thing he knew, he was encircled, beaten and knifed in the gut right there on a Greenwich Village sidewalk - by seven bloodthirsty young lesbians."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04122007/news/regionalnews/attack_of_the_killer_lesbians_regionalnews_laura_italiano.htm

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

178: What you have to recognize is that the vulnerability can't be avoided. If you're trying to have sex with someone, at some point you have to make your intentions clear, at which point you can be rejected. Being mealy-mouthed about it doesn't allow for less vulnerability, it just increases the chance that you'll miscommunicate what's going on.

176: Sure -- when things are going smoothly and deftly, it's a back-and-forth of little steps forward that get reciprocated by the other person, and no one has to put themselves too far out there. But when that's not working, which is often for many of us, it's an immensely better idea to move toward more explicitness rather than muddling ahead despite ambiguity or incomprehension. (Quitting and going home is always a fair option, but that leads to never getting laid.)

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

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

What you have to recognize is that the vulnerability can't be avoided. If you're trying to have sex with someone, at some point you have to make your intentions clear, at which point you can be rejected. Being mealy-mouthed about it doesn't allow for less vulnerability, it just increases the chance that you'll miscommunicate what's going on.

Oh, absolutely. I mean, I'm totally aware of this on an intellectual level, but when it comes to actually carrying it out in practice I end up chickening out every time. It's definitely something I need to work on, which is kind of why I'm going on about it here.

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.

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

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

Not that people don't try, of course.

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

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.)

192: I apppreciate your, um, optimism?

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

Endearingly awkward can also work

Oh, yeahhhhhh.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

199: URL?

Not here, clearly.

URL?

http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/

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!"

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

Yes, I have sometimes been a Bad Person.

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

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.

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!"

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?

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Oops.

And the homebaked bread is delicious, IYKWIM.

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

What! I though she only had eyes for dsquared.

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.

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.

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

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

Also I am FAR from generic, thankyouverymuch.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Pigtails take 10-20 years off your perceived age.

As do footie jammies.

233: If you're 20.

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

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.

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.

236: 231 does that?

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

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

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."

No lasses are reading that thread.

229?

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.

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.

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.

I love JE's mom.

242: You did.

Fuck.

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

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

242 to 247.

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.

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

FUCK. I mean, 248 to 247.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Ned's 256 also gets it exactly right.

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

Ooooonly kidding.

257 NO FAIR.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

267: I'm working on it.

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

269: Or to earlier authors. See Amelia.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

293 was to 291. 297 was to 289?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

"cynical" being the opposite of "romantic'.

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'.

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

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

Hey!

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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?

This thread makes me think of this song.

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.

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.

Snap!

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.

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.

341: The locker room lives!!!

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

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

cocks are stupid and undiscriminating

Ahem.

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???

Oh man it's so on.

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

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

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

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

Dream on, my friend.

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

353 to 352.

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

354: You? No.

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

357 to 356.1

Not while you're full of eels, no.

Is LB being dumped?

Or supplemented?

359: Um, what?

270 to 359.2
288 to 359.2

Eels or carp, either one.

363: Um, what??

359 to 356.

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

345: So get off the computer already.

I mean 354. 363 to 360.

365: Who does "you" refer too?

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

Do you want an albino?

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.

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.

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

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.

YOU PEOPLE ARE NERDS

What we have here is a failure of communication,

Some folks you just can't change.

377: Link?

Don't you people know the rules???

See, I never know how people find old comments.

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

Hey heebie.

Confidentially, I never called her OPINIONATED BABY DOLL.

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

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.

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

This isn't you, is it, OG?

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

384: CURSE THOSE FUCKING CARP TO HADES!

Standpipe has a blog?

381 - will any link do?

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.

Standpipe has a blog?

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

Standpipe has a blog?

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

DAMMIT.

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

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

N00BS YOU ARE WELCOME

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

Don't embarrass yourself.

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

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.

The third or fourth one, I think.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eels are good for picking up princesses.

Better than tongs?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

412: A Tatar, probably.

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

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

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

Will you two get a room already?

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.

419: Please see 348 and 399.

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?

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

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

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

Now, can we move on?

I only hope you can, B.

Sexis...

God, even that's getting boring.

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

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.

Somewhere in the universe there is banter.

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

Sexis...getting boring.

I'm sorry.

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

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

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

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

Well, we've failed the test.

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

Somewhere in Banta World, there is Banta.

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

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

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

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

You're right though, pretty gruesome.

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

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.

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?

445: Really? That's terribly sad.

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

I ♥ my new dutch oven!

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

What is this if not flirting?

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

Le Creuset?

No, Tasmanian Devils.

No, Tasmanian Devils.

No, Tasmanian Devils.

Tasmanian Devils?

Are you absolutely sure about that, John?

No.

Yes, Tasmanian devils.

No.

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

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.

LB, you have your issue now.

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.

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

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.

SB, I know you're the joke person around here, but we were trying to have a serious discussion for once.

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.

466: maybe the problem with this thread is too much Irish?

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.

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.

They were holding out OK before the virus, and staving off the invasive red foxes.

467: (pedantic assholery predacted)

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.

We seem to be at wit's end.

474: Remove one word for improved parsing.

475: Oh, I think I've still got half left.

They're really good with cadavers. I'm wondering whether the funeral industry could market Devil funerals to Wiccans and Greens.

474: If the Tasmanian Devil Clones have any sense, they'll cannibalize themselves when they see the polymer cities.

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.

474: Logan's Rabbit Run?

Angstrom! Ha!

478: No, to Parsis. Aren't they in terrible funeral trouble for lack of vultures?

What I mean is, John Updike is a brilliant genius.

482: Thus are the banter and small furry creature subcomponents of this thread reconnected.

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.

484: Oh. Dear.

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.

So we strap the Devils into hanggliders. Problem solved.

SB is just baiting me. It's too late at night.

484: Oh. Dear.

You don't think so? He's one of my favorite feminist writers.

489: http://www.xkcd.com/c20.html

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.

Okay, well, I'm feeling cynical and queasy today. Ignore me.

Most of the banter in the universe is impervious to ordinary modes of detection

Your banter is intelligent and most witty.

natural predators (the only one left is the automobile)

New fuel source?

489 was awesome, and the combination of it and 492 is about the best thing ever.

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.

~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.

500!

491 renders 490 superfluous, thank god.

Oh well.

492 is absolutely awesome. That is a fine, fine webcomic.

492 is sad.

505: How do you handle things such as that that make you sad? I'm curious.

Updike was the Keillor of his day.

Life is pain.

I should have said, was an important influence on Keillor and anticipated many of his themes.

Anyone who says differently is selling something.

Writing about honkies who never do anything is hard, you know. I've tried.

The secret is to make your characters fictional. It opens up more possibilities.

Authors of unusual sexism? I don't believe they exist.

The choice between realism and art is a stark one in this case. I thought the unicorn gimmick sucked big time.

You mean The Centaur? I liked that book.

Roth is my favorite sexist author.

Too much information, Ned.

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

Um, what? Surely no such thing exists?

the unicorn gimmick

That was by Robert Ludlum, right?

It's possible that I meant The Centaur.

507: Yeah, and?

516: Mine's Pope.

518: YHBT, YHL, HAND.

522: Um, what? Decoding, please?

You have been trolled, you have lost, have a nice day.

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.

524: No, ben, you're the one who has been trolled. And you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

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.

Late, but eels, eels, and carp.

Night, all.

I liked 513

Heh. That second photo is beautiful; the third one made me laugh.

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.

Is he in possession of a large fortune?

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.

(And, of course, my selfish desire to not have the site break)

525: Sometimes that kind of melancholy triggers depressive ideation in me. Thus the question.

Huh. It's "good fortune." And recently I got "love's light wings" wrong. I should just stop.

535: Ah. No, I'm on meds, dude. Yay meds!

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.

CharleyCarp is Dave Grohl!

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?"

515 and 519 get two thumbs up. One thumb for each.

Unbreak my site!

Say you'll load it again.

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.

Tis better to have commented and lost than never to have commented at all.

Wow, those are some great photos in Charley's photostream.

530 gets it exactly right.

M/tch, will you stop following me around?

Oh, was 530 by you?

Say, did you hear the one about the cockatoo and the Cadbury Creme Eggs?

Tis better to have commented and lost than never to have commented at all.

However.

548: Go to bed.

549: No.

551: You left off "Let's", B. But seriously, I like you, but I don't want to sleep with you.

Except: no more unfogged happy fun page.

554 to 550

So w/d, did you hear the one about the cockatoo and the Cadbury Creme Eggs?

Except: no more unfogged happy fun page.

However.

Yes, on this week's Wait Wait Don't Tell Me.

But you can read about it here.

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.

557: You bring back bad memories.

I'm in bed, already, keeping PK "company" because neither he nor I are feeling all that good, actually.

Did you change into pyjamas?

Change into? I never got out of 'em today. But they're not the footie ones; it's been too warm here lately.

Scare quotes? Is that the bphd "humor" I keep hearing about?

If you keep mocking me, I may barf on you. Or perhaps crap. I haven't decided which yet.

"Company" is a direct quote; it's what PK says when he's feeling clingy.

Okay, yeah, so, Tasmanian devils. Know what's cute about Tasmanian Devils? The sounds they make.

They sound like wookies on helium.

I think that we should have a special Updike-Keillor-Roth thread for B.