Pharyngula

Posted by: russellseitz | July 5, 2011 1:47 PM

If this leads to golfing on the Sabbath, it is but a thing predestinate, for there are no atheists in a sand trap.

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | July 5, 2011 2:02 PM

Last Thread:

*hugs for Kev. Remember that putting an axe through any part of your computer is only a momentary pleasure; but if you must give it the axe, be sure it's unplugged first.

(Both the computer and the axe.)
-

Short of bloody revolution and/or assassination.

Which isn't legitimate. *eyeroll*

True. But those are the usual ways of "firing" hereditary monarchs. I suppose I should have added "induce them to abdicate", but generally speaking, the ones that most deserve to lose their employment are the ones least likely to turn in their resignation, even with the looming threats of Plans A and B.
-

Wonders if he's the only USA'n who made zero effort to see any fireworks last night

Nope. :)

I like fireworks, I was busy. Trying to catch up with Pharyngula. I had to give up and wash my hands of the MRA thread/s.
-
Damn, but this site is sucking hard (for me; I hope your collective mileages are varying!) today. The roll-over ad at the top of the page autostarts any time I follow a link and come back, and after I get it to stop it!, scrolling and typing are slow and jerky.
*hovering dark cloud*
-

Don't worry though, Walton, I'm sure that given the increasingly impotent but corrupt government, and the successful maneuvering of the already-filthy-rich we will surely have some push for entrenching dynastic rule in the US.

Yes, but should we support the claims of the Kennedy dynasty, or the Bush dynasty, or maybe search out the heir to the Adams dynasty? So many competing hereditary lines....
-
-

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 5, 2011 2:06 PM

I like Billy Connoly. It's the outrage in his voice.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 5, 2011 2:16 PM

Wonders if he's the only USA'n who made zero effort to see any fireworks last night

I didn't either!

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 5, 2011 2:26 PM

So when it comes to a minor corner of public policy that makes no real difference to anything in the real world, is it really so bad for me to cling to the escapist aesthetic of monarchy?

Yes, the way you've been practicing it.

The question of republicanism is an active one with real consequences, and you've come down against it—so your interest is not solely aesthetic—based on farcical arguments such as the monarchy not costing the British taxpayer. I haven't noticed whether you gave up that particular argument after I explained that in a civilized nation the Crown Estate would already be a public holding, but it wasn't that long ago.

Maybe, even if you practiced differently.

The official status (above and beyond the very existence) of the monarchy probably increases public support for the Tories. That recent paper on how the Fourth of July has helped Republicans was just one small item, but compare The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer. One is tempted to suggest that your own conservatism was driven in part by this aesthetic, and you won't be the only one.

I won't speculate much on whether Diana and Kate have done more to propagate the feminine mystique than Disney.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | July 5, 2011 2:42 PM

Everyone's gut flora is idiosyncratic, too, probably because of founder effects.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | July 5, 2011 2:46 PM

I really like the random quote that came up for me on the sidebar; it's not one I've seen before:
Religious Displays, as distinct from religious beliefs, are submissive acts performed towards dominant individuals called gods. The acts themselves include various forms of body-lowering, such as kneeling, bowing, kowtowing, salaaming and prostrating; also chanting and rituals of debasement and sacrifice; the offering of gifts to the gods and the making of symbolic gestures of allegiance. The function of these actions is to appease the super-dominant beings and thereby obtains favours or avoid punishments. There is nothing unusual about this behaviour in itself. Subordinates throughout the animal world subject themselves to their most powerful companions in a similar way. But the strange feature of these human submissive actions, as we encounter them today, is that they are performed towards a dominant figure, or figures, who are never present in person. Instead they are represented by images and artifacts and operate entirely through agents called holy-men or priests. These middle-men enjoy a position of social influence and respect because some of the power of the gods rubs off on them. It is therefore extremely important to the holy-men to keep the worshippers permanently obedient to the super- dominant figures, and they do this in several ways. —[Desmond Morris, Manwatching: A Field Guide to Human Behaviour, 1977, Abrams, New York, pages 148-9]
However, the conclusion had occurred to me independently in one of those "follow the money" moments.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 5, 2011 2:47 PM

Ring Tailed Lemurian,
Sorry, it's dangerous habit. I have this fear that I will respond to SC as if she is Strange Gods because of my habit of shortening him to SG.
___

Ogvorbis,
I don't know as my attention span will hold to see tactics. I can understand the scenery. I just can't watch people ride bikes, maybe I am too close, I dunno.
___

Benjamin,
I am glad you are feeling okay with this, many people find the transition from prolonged sickness to actual loss a different kind of stress from sudden loss, but still very difficult.
___

Euchre resembles a card game, but has all the fun sucked out of it.
___

Hi Minnie, Hows the cottage?

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Emperor of Fire, Steam and Absurdity | July 5, 2011 2:50 PM

Ogvorbis, I don't know as my attention span will hold to see tactics. I can understand the scenery. I just can't watch people ride bikes, maybe I am too close, I dunno.

I can see that. I like races -- horse, ski, auto, motorcycle, bicycle, you name it. I'm one of the probable few of the regulars here who even enjoys NASCAR (oh, look! they're turning LEFT!).

Posted by: beetle, licensed porpupine breeder | July 5, 2011 3:02 PM

Trying to keep up with this thread is a talent in itself! Yikes! Thanks for the welcoming words, I promise to overshare in small bits. :) For today, reading the coming out stories has reminded me to thank my parents for having a basically meh attitude toward religion-cultural Christian but never baptised, and not much for church. It wasn't exactly easy for me to come to atheism, but relative to others it was a breeze as I knew my family wouldn't be hostile. Cyberhugs to all of you.

David Marjanović,

Thank you. That is basically what I said to her, that my atheism centers on the question of the explanation of the universe: either you believe in a supernatural explanation of the universe, or you accept a natural explanation of the universe. If you accept the natural explanation, then god becomes unnecessary. She balked at the unnecessary bit, because she thinks that science/god are not mutually exclusive. I told her that was wishful thinking. Mainly I wanted someone to explain the theorem to me because I wasn't clear on what it's implications were last night and it's easier to get someone else to do the work. ;)

serendipitydawg,

thank you for that, and I'll check out that book.

Also, since catching up I've discovered I want a spanking couch, going to look for one at the antique shops, and I suck at Set. I hope over time I get better at it.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 5, 2011 3:07 PM

I'll take the Addams family over the Adams family. John Adams was a decent man overall, but he never understood the presidency--or the vice presidency for that matter. John Quincy Adams was similarly unsuccessful, despite more preparation than any other politician of his day.

In that sense, they did no better than the Bushes--two failed presidencies.

Posted by: Orson Zedd | July 5, 2011 3:11 PM

About the last thread: I wouldn't call it depressing. I just came to Vegas recently. It was as close to a religious experience as I've ever had. But I knew it wasn't God who had made this world. It was people.

Posted by: Old Yippie | July 5, 2011 3:12 PM

I'm one of those who say that overuse of profanity is a sign of a limited vocabularly. And don't start whining about tone trolls.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 5, 2011 3:18 PM

Algernon, I've often said that my upbringing was

"The Addams meet the Cleavers"

My parents still live in the same house I grew up in. They are still married, still enjoy each other's company and are still in love. They were supportive of their children to a fault while at the same time holding us accountable for our behavior and performance. Indeed, they are both still registered Republicans, although they haven't voted Republican since Nixon's first term (they say they stay in just to piss off the other Republicans).

And yet...

They're just a wee bit bent. So, yeah, I have a bit of a soft spot for the Addamses as well.

Posted by: Brownian | July 5, 2011 3:21 PM

I'm one of those who say that overuse of profanity is a sign of a limited vocabularly.

Ah, you mean one of those people who prefers to sound proper than to be correct.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 5, 2011 3:23 PM

Old Yippie,
My wife often tells me that I am a lot more eloquent--and a lot more venomous--when I do not swear.

My cussing you out means I've decided to take it easy on you.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 5, 2011 3:26 PM

So, yeah, I have a bit of a soft spot for the Addamses as well.

Oh I always wanted to be like Morticia. Unfortunately my family is more like My Name is Earl meets Arrested Development :(

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 5, 2011 3:28 PM

Cite the peer-reviewed evidence or shut the fuck up and get out, loser.

iswydt

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 5, 2011 3:29 PM

The Sailor@ 32,

"May I go to the bathroom, please?"

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 5, 2011 3:31 PM

Morticia, the original goth princess...

or

Morticia, the other white meat.

You decide.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 5, 2011 3:33 PM

That is just about the only Steve Martin line that ever made me laugh. I don't get him at all.

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Emperor of Fire, Steam and Absurdity | July 5, 2011 3:34 PM

I am not going to wade in again.

I am not going to wade in again.

I am not going to wade in again.

I had said to myslef, "Self, if that damn thread starts up again, I ain't gonna post a word," and, when the damn MRAss thread started up again, I went ahead and made a comment and it was immediately contorted into something I don't recognize and now it has become 'what about the gayz' because of the cartoon and the menz are spinning so fast that Janine has a new 'nym and I am not going to wade in again.

I am not going to wade in again.

I am not going to wade in again.

I am not going to wade in again.

Posted by: Charles Darwin | July 5, 2011 3:36 PM

Monkeys were humans? LOL!

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 5, 2011 3:39 PM

Sorry, that was in response to Brother Ogvorbis.

Posted by: The Sailor | July 5, 2011 3:42 PM

IRT Steve Martin, I liked his early comedy routines, I've never been a big fan of his movies. I do like the idea that he's always made a good living from his work.
My favorite quote? "I was born a poor black child."

Posted by: Old Yippie | July 5, 2011 3:43 PM

A bit of profanity can lend emphasis. But when you have sentences in which it seems that every other word is "fuck", that is overdoing it. It does show a lack of vocabulary.

I have known working-class lowland Scots, and most of them do not feel the need to use that sort of language all the time. Can you imagine Keir Hardie doing it?

Pulp Fiction is a movie I really liked. I would have liked it more if Tarentino had not overused both the profanity and the word "nigger".

Posted by: Gus Snarp | July 5, 2011 3:50 PM

@Brother Ogvorbis - I barely dipped my toe, and I'm out. The stupidity is just too deep. I can almost hear the "la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you!" from my desk.

Posted by: The Sailor | July 5, 2011 3:51 PM

Old Yippie, I get comments about my *bad* language at work, but I also get a pass because I did spend 20 years in rock & roll before I joined the ivory towers of research.

I'm so sorry you disapprove of Tarentino's script. Me? I have a problem with the violence.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 5, 2011 3:53 PM

A bit of profanity can lend emphasis. But when you have sentences in which it seems that every other word is "fuck", that is overdoing it. It does show a lack of vocabulary.

Losers make assertions without evidence. Cite the peer-reviewed literature or admit you're a loser.

Posted by: The Sailor | July 5, 2011 3:59 PM

Brownian, I have told the students (post grads) who work under me that "this is really fucking cool!"

BTW, did you notice you're one of the top contenders for a T-shirt on the 'Selling Out' thread?

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Emperor of Fire, Steam and Absurdity | July 5, 2011 4:03 PM

Odd question of the day:

Boy is installing a new radio and plans to use gap-filling CA to reseal the insulation on the antenna wire. Is cyanoacrylate (superglue) electrically conductive?

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | July 5, 2011 4:06 PM

The comic thread is boring and I have better things to do than wasting time on internet so I think I'll hang out here for a bit.

Regarding the use of profanities :

As any other word in the language, a profanity can be overused. I wouldn't go determining whether a profanity is being overused on basis of politeness but, as with any other word, according to it's contribution to the discourse and general circumstances. In the heat of an argument, generous use of profanities helps convey speaker's emotions, when talking to a group of people who are accustomed to a more "polite" approach it may cause shock but also emphasize a point, etc. Also, it depends on the person using it. Billy Connolly uses profanities in his show and it works, it probably wouldn't be the same without them. This is turning into an essay, so I'll wrap it up. My point is that I judge the use of profanities in the same way I judge use of any other word. Someone saying fuck as every other word would bother me if it disrupted the meaning of hir sentences while adding nothing. Again, the example of Billy Connolly - for him, they add feeling and they add to his performance. So, it works for him.
(On the other hand, a fucking friend of mine fucking used to fucking insert a fucking profanity after almost every fucking word. And that went on for most of our teenage fucking years. That was fucking annoying.)

Posted by: Gus Snarp | July 5, 2011 4:11 PM

@Walton - You're not missing that much. Tarantino is overrated.

Posted by: The Sailor | July 5, 2011 4:12 PM

"bending over backwards", "shoving it down our throats", me thinks they protest to much.
+++++++++++++++
In other news; the Large Hardon Collider has yet to discover a particle of the Higgs/Einstein Bosom.

They're doing it wrong.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | July 5, 2011 4:22 PM

There is no good application of cursing, swearing or abusing the Mother Tongue in pursuit of establishing a point that is supported by an airtight and therefore persuasive argument.
The argument itself supplies the equivalent of the hollow "shock value" of profanity without the attendant social stigma and diminution of authority.

That is, if there is any fucking point at all.

;^>

*dad gum the dad burned razzmatazic stoboscopic strobosphores and wouldn't that just rasp ye*

Posted by: The Sailor | July 5, 2011 4:24 PM

I repeatedly punched the button for the next floor because the next words out of my mouth would have been 'because there are motherfucking snakes on the motherfucking plane!'

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 5, 2011 4:27 PM

I don't get it. The plot of the film is this:

"some people put deadly snakes on a plane. Hilarity ensues (only not really because it's not that funny or interesting)"

Posted by: kev_s | July 5, 2011 4:31 PM

For professional profanity nothing better than Derek and Clive

Posted by: Brownian | July 5, 2011 4:33 PM

@Walton - You're not missing that much. Tarantino is overrated.

He used to have something to say. Now it seems that the only thing he ever says with his films is that he spent his youth watching way more movies than you and don't you ever forget it.

He's a lot like someone who reminds you that he thinks your vocabularly is more limited than his, only his vocabularly is movies.

Posted by: greame | July 5, 2011 4:34 PM

@54 RevBigDumbChimp

I was going to go back to that thread to say that if the word "fuck" appears in a paragraph more then the word "the", I'd be less inclined to take one seriously. Unless it can be done with extreme eloquence...

Because fuck actually fuck using fuck every fucking other fucking word fuck would fucking be fucking hard fuck to fucking read, fuck, but fuck if fucking it fucking doesn't fucking mean fuck a fucking lack fuck of fucking vocabulary. Fuck it fucking just fucking means fucking strange fucking way fuck to fucking write.

Which you've just done. I tip my hat to you, sir, and I stand corrected. ;D

Posted by: Tricked Coffee | July 5, 2011 4:38 PM

I'm one of those who say that overuse of profanity is a sign of a limited vocabularly. And don't start whining about tone trolls.

Posted by: The Sailor | July 5, 2011 4:41 PM

My ex-gf and her colleague used to be called the Tourettes' Twins. Fuck!

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 5, 2011 4:48 PM

Brownian,
I fucking love you, man.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 5, 2011 4:54 PM

It's a strange coincidence that everyone is discussing profanity, and disapproval thereof, just as I was listening to the well-bred Captain of the Pinafore.

(I seem to have developed a growing Gilbert and Sullivan impression in the last few days.)

Posted by: The Sailor | July 5, 2011 5:02 PM

I am the very model of a modern major general.

Posted by: Brownian | July 5, 2011 5:03 PM

(I seem to have developed a growing Gilbert and Sullivan impression in the last few days.)

I'm having a difficult time parsing this one. You've developed an impression of them growing?

Can you throw a 'fuck' in there?

Okay, I gotta jet. The MicL (Mother-in-common-law) doesn't drive in the—heh-heh—city*, and so we've got to pick her up from the edge of town.

*It's Edmonton, for crying out loud. We all drive terribly.

Posted by: broboxley OT | July 5, 2011 5:09 PM

I prefer tarantino's movie from dusk till dawn, I swear I was in that bar circa 1983

Posted by: Richard Austin | July 5, 2011 5:12 PM

Brownian:

The MicL (Mother-in-common-law) doesn't drive in the—heh-heh—city*, and so we've got to pick her up from the edge of town

For some reason, I giggled and thought of this:

James James said to his mother, "Mother," he said, said he, "You must never go down to the end of the town, if you don't go down with me."

(A.A.Milne fuckin' rocks. Fuckin'.)

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 5, 2011 5:16 PM

I hate to say it but my favorite movie line is still:

"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?"

Posted by: serendipitydawg | July 5, 2011 5:23 PM

beetle @19,

It's a fun, if complex, book...

The basis of incompleteness boils down to the fact that no axiomatic system can eliminate an indeterminate statement of the form This statement is false, what follows from that beats any sophisticated theology™ into any number of cocked hats. I wish mathematics didn't scare the proverbial out of people because it is beautiful.

The Sailor (I thought you bought a second hand rudder??)@32,

Corollary: I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than you.

Always liked this one :D

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 5, 2011 5:28 PM

We need a bigger boat.

Posted by: The Sailor | July 5, 2011 5:31 PM

serendipitydawg, I DID buy a 2nd hand rudder, it just ain't been delivered yet.
+++++++++++++++++++++
CC, it gets better.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 5, 2011 5:36 PM

Feynmaniac,
That whole movie is full. I love this:
You know, this reminds me of the time you tried to put a hole in your head with a drill.
That would have worked if you hadn't stopped me.

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Emperor of Fire, Steam and Absurdity | July 5, 2011 5:39 PM

Inigo Montoya: You are sure nobody's follow' us?

Vizzini: As I told you, it would be absolutely, totally, and in all other ways inconceivable. No one in Guilder knows what we've done, and no one in Florin could have gotten here so fast. - Out of curiosity, why do you ask?

Inigo Montoya: No reason. It's only... I just happened to look behind us and something is there.

Vizzini: What? Probably some local fisherman, out for a pleasure cruise, at night... in... eel-infested waters...

Posted by: The Sailor | July 5, 2011 5:43 PM

"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die. ..."

(somebody had to do it.)

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Emperor of Fire, Steam and Absurdity | July 5, 2011 5:44 PM

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Apropos of Nada | July 5, 2011 5:49 PM

The Sailor:

For which one?

Posted by: The Sailor | July 5, 2011 5:51 PM

"all of my favorite TV lines are Joss Whedon."
I'll be in my bunk.

From Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid: "Rules in a knife fight?"

Posted by: The Sailor | July 5, 2011 5:56 PM

Bro Og it was for "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

It could almost be a PZ T-shirt logo. (Almost because it is, ya know, copywritten.) (And yes, I am to arsed to look up the circle C, why do you ask?)

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 5, 2011 5:57 PM

A_Ray:

My wife often tells me that I am a lot more eloquent--and a lot more venomous--when I do not swear.

Same here. If I'm not swearing, you have much more to worry about.

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Apropos of Nada | July 5, 2011 6:01 PM

I think I may have to go home and watch The Princess Bride; I've not seen it in ages. I blame you guys.

Watching it right now. They are drinking the poisoned wine.

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Apropos of Nada | July 5, 2011 6:06 PM

Any comments you make will be judged, and often judged harshly for grammar. . .

Now that's just mean. Anyone who would judge someone's grammar on a blog comment is just being a meanie!

Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu | July 5, 2011 6:11 PM

Oh deary me. Started reading the latest (and last, for the time being) Elevator Incident thread and ended losing two perfectly good hours of my life.

Well, it was not all wasted time. I really, really do admire you guys who still have the energy to even try to explain these particular issues to the clueless brigade.

Also, had a lively discussion of said topic with my lads, which hopefully may make them slightly less Schroedingerish in the future. I hope.

Dhorvath @15:

The cottage is still wonderful, every day more so, as we discover new things in the vicinity, new plants on the property and new birds in the forest. Plus: glow worms on our front steps! Nature's own LED lights! How cooool is that? =)

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Apropos of Nada | July 5, 2011 6:12 PM

That's another film I've never seen.

You just lost one respect point.

(For a second I confused it with The Princess Diaries, which I have seen, and rather enjoyed.)

You just lost a second.

Trust me. Watch the movie.

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Apropos of Nada | July 5, 2011 6:23 PM

On some occasions, you might want to sound like a pompous git who swallowed a dictionary followed by a thesaurus chaser;

That is pretty much the same thing a high school English teacher once wrote on a term paper in which I compared the socio-religious themes in Frank Herbert's Dune with the founding and expansion of Islam, as well as the concept of a saviour for an oppressed populace. I got an A, but only after I proved to her that I could pronounce, and use correctly, a list of 50 words culled from my paper.

However, I view cuss words, salty language, as a wonderful way to add emphasis in certain situations. (of course, my outburst on the last thread , , ,)

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | July 5, 2011 6:23 PM

Since we're generally on funny ones, here's some of my favorites:
"And... and you have stupid hair."


"It's a big rock. Can't wait to tell my friends."


"We need to resort to cannibalism."
Pretty much anything Topher Brink says is either hilarious or awesome :)

Posted by: Ed Milnisov | July 5, 2011 6:32 PM

the wood chipper was something of which I should not put.

ffs

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 5, 2011 6:35 PM

I can't think of any favourite movie lines offhand, but (continuing the Gilbert and Sullivan theme) here's one of my favourite moments from a Star Trek movie...

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 5, 2011 6:39 PM

Ghostbusters was, indeed, also an awesome movie.

(Did anyone else here also watch the spin-off cartoon, Extreme Ghostbusters? It was popular when I was a kid.)

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Apropos of Nada | July 5, 2011 6:43 PM

Let me 'splain. [pause] No. That will take too long.

Posted by: Ed Milnisov | July 5, 2011 6:52 PM

Dune (also the only movie I know of that was better than the book)

wow, sandi, it's true: you are an idiot!

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 5, 2011 6:55 PM

From Dune (also the only movie I know of that was better than the book)

Shut the fuck up, sandi. Every single time you get near a keyboard, you continue to prove what an intellectual wasteland your brain happens to be. In shorter words: you're an idiot and it shows.

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Apropos of Nada | July 5, 2011 6:59 PM

Sandiseattle:

Have you actually read the fucking book? Or seen either of the movies?

Posted by: sandiseattle | July 5, 2011 7:04 PM

Brother Og: yes I have read Dune. It was a little heavy in it tone to me, it read like a history. Which I suppose is what Herbert intended. I felt the Dune movie did a much better job of just being a story. Generally speaking most of the time the book is better than the movie.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 5, 2011 7:08 PM

Netflix arrived, just plugged in True Grit. Yeehaw!

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | July 5, 2011 7:10 PM

Netflix arrived, just plugged in True Grit. Yeehaw!

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 5, 2011 7:12 PM

(For a second I confused it with The Princess Diaries, which I have seen, and rather enjoyed.)

Daddy, I do not want a Walton like this.

(One of the few children's films I really liked as a kid)

I, by the way, loved that freaky scene in the boat as a kid. Quite right, STOP THE BOAT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zail7Gdqro

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 5, 2011 7:14 PM

Ogvorbis:

What colour is the sky in your world?

Idiot coloured.

Posted by: sandiseattle | July 5, 2011 7:15 PM

What colour is the sky in your world?

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Apropos of Nada | July 5, 2011 7:17 PM

And now I am watching Some Like It Hot. And, for some reason, it always plays with French subtitles.

Posted by: beetle, licensed porpupine breeder | July 5, 2011 7:18 PM

Ghostbusters is currently my eight year old's favorite movie. I watched it with him recently, and I'd forgotten how hilarious it is. The Princess Bride, ::love::

The Stranger: There's just one thing, Dude.

The Dude: And what's that?
The Stranger: Do you have to use so many cuss words?
The Dude: What the fuck you talking about?
The Stranger: Okay, Dude. Have it your way.

And,

The Dude: Who the fuck are you, man?

Knox Harrington: [giggles] Oh, just a friend of Maudie's.
The Dude: Yeah, a friend with a cleft asshole?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 5, 2011 7:21 PM

Cosmic Snark:

Out of curiosity, did you see the movie first, or read the book first?

Please, don't encourage our theistic village idiot.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 5, 2011 7:24 PM

Daddy, I do not want a Walton like this.

*hangs head in shame, recognizing own poor taste in movies*

I only vaguely remember seeing the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory movie (I don't know if I ever even saw it all the way through). I liked the book, though. Along with the equally-odd sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. We had all Roald Dahl's books when I was a kid... I remember The Twits permanently put me off eating spaghetti.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | July 5, 2011 7:25 PM

Dune (also the only movie I know of that was better than the book)

wow, sandi, it's true: you are an idiot!

hehe.

Actually, I didn't think the movie was as bad as everyone says, though it definitely didn't live up to the book. The Sci Fi miniseries came closer.

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | July 5, 2011 7:32 PM

I *hated* the boat ride scene in the original Wonka movie. HATED it. When I was two years old, I recorded over that scene on our VHS copy.

I actually own the remake, but haven't watched it yet. I've got a lot of movies I've never watched. The Princess and the Frog and Inception are pretty high up on my list to watch; I've got both on Blu-Ray, but haven't watched either, mainly due to time.

Posted by: slignot | July 5, 2011 7:32 PM

I really shouldn't have let myself get dragged into elevatorgate comments at Skepchick, but since I sat out the clusterfuck here maybe I'm making up for it by trying to continue sanity. There haven't been nearly as many total assholes there as I expected so far, actually.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 5, 2011 7:38 PM

In the catagory of 'you learn something new every day': did not know Dahl had written anything else but the Wonka books, going to have to check out his bibliography.

Oh, he wrote lots of children's books, several of which IIRC were made into movies (from memory, The Witches was definitely made into a movie; as was Matilda, the movie adaptation of which I remember watching in school). Then there was The BFG, which was one of my favourite books when I was a kid, though I don't remember there being a movie version. He also wrote several shorter books for younger children - the ones I remember are Esio Trot (about a tortoise) and The Twits.

Posted by: Cosmic Snark | July 5, 2011 7:39 PM

I read the book first. I truly like a detailed universe in SF, but Herbert was a bit too detailed at times.

I'm thinking if you had seen the movie before reading the book, you would have hated the movie because you would not have been able to discern a plot.

I'm also thinking that if you had appreciated the book more than you did, you would have hated the movie as well, but for other and additional reasons.

There's dumbing down a book to make a movie, but it's not the lack of detail that doomed the movie. Lynch cherry-picked Herbert's novel like a desperate Christian apologist stringing together totally unrelated OT scripture in order to "prove" Jesus fulfilled some OT prophecy or another. IIRC Lynch was embarrassed in later years to have been associated with that travesty.

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | July 5, 2011 7:44 PM

Carlie:

1. It's "Right frog!"

2. That entire movie is a string of quotable bits.

"I don't know how to thank you guys."
"I don't know why to thank you guys."

"That's pretty dangerous, building a road in the middle of the street. I mean, if frogs couldn't hop, I'd be gone with the Schwinn."

"Uh-oh. Zoot skipped the groove again."

"Jack not name! Jack job!"

And I love the parts where they basically go, "What fourth wall?"

Posted by: sandiseattle | July 5, 2011 7:45 PM

I'm thinking if you had seen the movie before reading the book, you would have hated the movie

Maybe, maybe not. Where SF and movies are concerned I'm the escapist type. Both books and movies provide that in different ways.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 5, 2011 7:49 PM

In another display of shockingly bad taste I was a huge fan of Sailor Moon and Utena. I still have a soft spot for the RGU film.

So... lesbians.

Posted by: beetle, licensed porpupine breeder | July 5, 2011 7:55 PM

A favorite film from my childhood that is actually pretty embarrassing though: The Last Unicorn

Care to sit on the bad taste bench with me? I loved that movie. And now I'm going to have to check Netflix to see if it's there.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 5, 2011 7:58 PM

Algernon,
I have a soft spot for that film. Especially the ending. Of course, it has unicorns and a flaming bull, how could it go wrong?
___

Cosmic Snark,
Lynch had five and a half hours of useable footage for that film. There was no way he could have made it work for a one sitting film. Ultimately he elected pace over content and rejected later edits that added exposition back in.

Posted by: John Morales | July 5, 2011 8:01 PM

[I gotta hand it to sandiseattle. Not everyone can blithely ignore ubiquitous and persistent scorn]

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 5, 2011 8:02 PM

Oh, and I liked Dune as a movie. It was pretty and had a lot of language I find resonant. Yes, it's a plot mess and hopelessly melodramatic, but it has it's charms.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 5, 2011 8:07 PM

Oh, and I liked Dune as a movie. It was pretty and had a lot of language I find resonant. Yes, it's a plot mess and hopelessly melodramatic, but it has it's charms.

DUne is one of the best and most quotable bad movies

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | July 5, 2011 8:10 PM

Walk without rhythm, and it won't attract the worm.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 5, 2011 8:13 PM

@Dhorvath

Also according to the book "Best Sci-fi Movies Never Made" that isn't the worst Dune we could have gotten.

One version of the script had a Jessica/Paul love story.

Posted by: Squigit | July 5, 2011 8:14 PM

I'm sorry everyone, but I just want you to know that Heliocentrism is the cause of all the world's ills.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 5, 2011 8:16 PM

Oh! Wow, just wow.

Posted by: Katrina, radicales féministes athées | July 5, 2011 8:18 PM

Went to the main SB page just now and their "In Conversation" quote was PZ's:

“Management seemed to want to land nothing but big prestige clients, like GE, but what they were selling was a motley horde of diverse and fractious voices, not the kind of thing corporate giants like, and now we're reduced to hosting garbage ads for Christian singles, Michele Bachmann, and psychic networks.”

My netflix just arrived, too. It's The Invention of Lying.

I don't think I could pick a favorite movie line. When I was in high school, my brother and I could recite every line from Airplane! without missing a thing.

The only movie I've ever seen that I preferred over the book was The Name of the Rose. I thought the movie ending made more sense. I can't recall now why. I'd have to re-read/re-watch them to say.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 5, 2011 8:19 PM

The Point!

I loved that movie too.

Posted by: Squigit | July 5, 2011 8:21 PM

Elevatorgate

I know it shouldn't, but the fact that we add "gate" to every single controversial issue makes me giggle.

I think the problem maybe is Johnny Depp. *puts on flame retardant* I just don't like him much in films. He has always gotten on my nerves.

You're going to need more than mere flame retardant for that one. *glare*

I hated Willy Wonka, too. And Alice in Wonderland (yes, yes, I know: Disney screwing it up and all that), god how I fucking hated it! My other half is obsessed with AiW and he drives me fucking crazy!

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 5, 2011 8:23 PM

Anyone give me some hope or reason to still give a shit about 'movements and meet ups' and all that, or should i just slide back into apathy and slacktavism.

I've met people from here and it's been great. I've gone to local atheist meet ups and it has been ok. Just take things for what they are, and for me that also means be realistic.

I'm not that big on movements anyway, but I think there is a point to it, even though it may not be any more welcoming to me than, say, my workplace.

It would be nice if it were better, but hey... most social things are things where you only have that one activity or whatever in common. It's actually foolish to assume anything more.

And that link totally reminded me of the secret of NIMH.

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Apropos of Nada | July 5, 2011 8:25 PM

"With all the unrest in the world, I don't think anyone should have a yacht that sleeps more than twelve."

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 5, 2011 8:36 PM

I saw Watership Down as a six year old, knowing nothing of it.

Inside me, a deep rage.

Posted by: cashforyourscars | July 5, 2011 8:38 PM

I don't know if I ever actually watched Watership Down--if I try to think back about it, I just get an image in my mind of rabbits and fire. That might just be from looking at the cover.
All Dogs Go to Heaven scared the shit out of me..."Chaaaarlie...you can never come back...", not to mention the terrifying depiction of, you know, hell.
I think The Last Unicorn is on Netflix Instant...if so, I might watch it again tonight to see if it's as sad (sad-sad, not pathetic-sad) as I remember.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 5, 2011 8:46 PM

I watched The Princess Diaries in a waiting room. It was not the worst film I have watched in a waiting room. Not by a long shot.

Posted by: beetle, licensed porpupine breeder | July 5, 2011 8:54 PM

cashforcars, thanks for that. I had already put The Secret of NIMH in my Netflix queue before reading that article. Watership Down was my favorite movie when I was little, and I got a copy of the book when I was, ten, I guess? And re-read it so often it nearly fell apart. Who Framed Roger Rabbit and The Rescuers I also liked as a kid. I guess my youngest isn't far behind, when he was five, his favorite movie was JAWS.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | July 5, 2011 9:01 PM

cashforcars,

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 5, 2011 9:07 PM

Fuck this shit.

*Retrieves the Gin*

Imma go practice piano. The internet is making my cry.

Posted by: John Morales | July 5, 2011 9:09 PM

Algernon, check out Rebecca's response. :)

Posted by: serendipitydawg | July 5, 2011 9:13 PM

Dune the film had one very good feature: the tech was pretty much all steampunk... think of the transports and the artillery control.

I really enjoyed the Bourne series as basic action genre (I like 'disengage brain' films, it's a failing.)

When I was away for a weekend, the hotel's bookcase had Supremacy and after trying to read it, I realised that the only part of Robert Ludlum's writing that made it to the films was probably the title. I was astounded that anyone was capable of spending two pages describing one punch... we are talking a fist being lazily drawn back in a smooth parabolic arc of retribution that carried with it the threat of extinction while holding yada yada yada. I gave up thirty pages in.

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Apropos of Nada | July 5, 2011 9:16 PM

Algernon:

Not sure if the desk or my head has a bigger dent. That commenter is sick. And not in a good way.

Posted by: SC OM | July 5, 2011 9:22 PM

For people who are asking why women, given what they face, persist in going to public atheist/skeptic events and pointing out the problems...

Because they're atheists and skeptics. The problems of interest at these meetings are important to them, and they want to actively address them in conjunction with others.

Because religion is especially a problem for women, and they want this point to be appreciated and addressed.

Because these events are opportunities. They're opportunities for networking, collaboration, recognition, job and leadership opportunities. If they exclude themselves, those event-based opportunities are lost to them.

Because they want to socialize and are interested in hanging out with other smart people who share some of their views, including in some cases potential romantic partners. And they expect that people capable of challenging received prejudice and stupidity in some areas have greater potential to examine their own in others.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | July 5, 2011 9:26 PM

Eesh, I'm out too (though Rebecca's response perked me right up). It's zombie films on the couch for the rest of the night.

Posted by: John Morales | July 5, 2011 9:31 PM

serendipitydawg,

I really enjoyed the Bourne series as basic action genre (I like 'disengage brain' films, it's a failing.)

IMO, they're good action flicks, but they don't hold a candle to the first two books (the third is, to put it bluntly, dreck).

(The only thing the books do better is to show the brutal physical competence of the lead character.)

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 5, 2011 9:32 PM

Feel like writing an essay about the elevator guy discussion now. But I don't want another endless cycle of MRA. :/

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | July 5, 2011 9:33 PM

It was neither a floor wax, nor a dessert topping.
-

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 5, 2011 9:35 PM

Caine, Flowers for Algernon was one of those books that shook me to the core when I read it in high school. I couldn't get it out of my head for months.

Hemant was pretty disappointing in all of this fighting, too. :(

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | July 5, 2011 9:36 PM

It was, in fact, an Abomination.
-

Posted by: beetle, licensed porpupine breeder | July 5, 2011 9:37 PM

FFS what is wrong with people. Rebecca's response was great, but that made me sick.

I worry about raising sons in this culture. Although, I have a lot of optimism. The other day, my oldest had a crisis. His lone friend in the world(poor kid has the worst luck finding friends, he's a sensitive, smart, non-athletic boy and, well, you guys know what that means in a typical US middle school. :/) started making racist jokes, and ended up using derogatory language that pissed The Elder right off. He was shaking, and ended up crying when he told me about this he was so mad, and said he wants nothing more to do with this friend. He asked me over and over why his friend would behave in such a way, and I explained that he learned it from his family, and that he's only eleven and there's a good chance he's never been challenged about it before. So, he's willing to ditch his only friend for injustice.

He once didn't understand a question on some internet quiz I let him take, "Who is smarter, boys or girls?" Just made no sense to him at all. So I guess he's going to be okay, I just, if I ever found out one of my sons responded in that way to a woman, I don't know. I can't even think what I'd do.

Posted by: Andyo | July 5, 2011 9:39 PM

Just in case, the Dawkins situation is getting its due, um, "consciousness raising" on Twitter. I've only seen unconditional support from the big bloggers including Ed Yong, Phil Plait and Greg Laden. We know where PZ stands, and of course there's all those darn man hating feminist bloggers!

Also this open letter.

Posted by: Melvin Dios | July 5, 2011 9:44 PM

Sting hasn't been 'cool' since, like, 1979.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 5, 2011 9:48 PM

Llewelly, even though I've wanted to, I've never been able to name one of my rats Algernon.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 5, 2011 9:48 PM

fuck

and

"Nice Marmot"

Posted by: Andyo | July 5, 2011 9:49 PM

Y'know what other rock star was cool on screen: Mick Jagger.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 5, 2011 9:53 PM

Beetle:

You just can't make this shit up. ;)

Hahahaha, no, you can't. :D

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 5, 2011 9:58 PM

Wowbagger,
I don't mind Christian Bale's Batman, 'cos let's be honest, he's the best so far. Also, the supporting cast has been brilliant-- I'm thinking specifically of Gary Oldman*, Aaron Eckhart, and (of course) Heath Ledger. *shrugs* I like Batman as a character, though.

I will wholeheartedly agree about Momento, The Prestige, and Inception. Damn, now I want to watch The Prestige, just for David Bowie. ;)

*Who knew that he could play a "good guy"?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 5, 2011 10:08 PM

Woah...

alcohol + migraine medicine = an absolutely refreshing sense of apathy

(some times apathy is a good thing)

I didn't realize my name was so loaded for others! I also loved that book and identified with the character so much. I never saw the movie adaptation. Couldn't bring myself to after having read the book.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | July 5, 2011 10:13 PM

Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart, PhD, MD, Esq (ODS) wrote:

I don't mind Christian Bale's Batman, 'cos let's be honest, he's the best so far.

I actually liked the Michael Keaton version. But I think the problem is that I've realised I just don't, for no specific reason I can put my finger on, like Christian Bale - and, for the most part, haven't liked the films he's been in, other than The Prestige and 3:10 to Yuma.

Posted by: sandiseattle | July 5, 2011 10:14 PM

@Algernon: hope its all Rx :-) (not that I can say anything, I still crave the OC and its been weeks since I was off it.)

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 5, 2011 10:18 PM

Wowbagger, have you seen The Machinist?

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 5, 2011 10:20 PM

Brownian:

Sometimes, they really do mean flip.

Oh god, I love The Usual Suspects.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 5, 2011 10:24 PM

I completely agree with Caine regarding Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH. It was one of my favorite movies as a kid, but when I read the book as an adult, that changed. I'm still too mad about that butchering to watch the movie. I mean, it was the *exact fucking opposite* of the book's message. </rage>

I adore both The Princess Bride and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid. Goldman is a truly quotable writer. I have a blatant theft an homage to one of my favorite scenes in Butch Cassidy et al in my most recent play.

In other news, just 3 days until the launch! I'm staying at my grandpa's place, next door to his wife's family. They are Tea Partiers. But we're having fun. We just avoid talking politics. You know what I learned? Even Teabaggers can be otherwise intelligent people. I guess their blind spots are just especially unfortunate. Guess what? I wasn't sneered at when I said I was a feminist. I wasn't so lucky with the fucking "freethought" association in Huntsville. How's that for depressing?

Posted by: serendipitydawg | July 5, 2011 10:31 PM

The weirdest film with Mick Jagger was Freejack. I can't remember why, possibly something mentioned in the film, but I was sitting in the cinema wondering why they had a word for it.

John Morales,

Bring on the cheddar cheese!^*

^*If my memory is playing tricks then this is going to get a completely blank look!



Gosh, it's 03:30... oops, too much catching up on iPlayer.

The final part of the "Infinite Monkey Cage" featured Richard Wiseman, very funny, very insightful. I have no idea if it is accessible from outside the UK but it is worth a listen if it is.

Goodnight all.

Posted by: cashforyourscars | July 5, 2011 10:36 PM

@beetle, 222:
heh it's okay...the nym is from a sign in town that says "Cash for your $car$". It makes me giggle when I see it.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 5, 2011 10:39 PM

@SC:

For people who are asking why women, given what they face, persist in going to public atheist/skeptic events and pointing out the problems...

Because they're atheists and skeptics.Also, y'know, because we're women. To actively avoid any public place where disturbing levels of privilege and sexism might be found, we pretty much have to lock ourselves in a closet. The skeptic community isn't actually worse than anywhere else, like the street or the workplace of the shops or the pub.

It's be nice if it was actually better, of course. We'll keep working on that.

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | July 5, 2011 10:43 PM

Galaxy Quest!
-

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 5, 2011 10:45 PM

HOLY CRAP, Wil Wheaton was in the Secret of NIMH!

IMDB really blows my mind most of the time.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 5, 2011 10:48 PM

Jesus Christ Superstar: way better than the book

I would like to give you this internet I just made out of cookies.

Yes, it was. I was seriously annoyed that the movie made it all out to be stupid magic, rather than intelligence and the desire to be independent, which would have made a terrific movie for kids, but noooo, it must be woo and magic.

Even at the young age I was when it came out, I remember being excited that there were smart girls in it and that would be awesome to see in a movie. And then, not so much.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | July 5, 2011 10:59 PM

Caine asked:

Wowbagger, have you seen The Machinist?

No, I haven't, though it is on 'the list'.

I will clarify, though, that it's not Bale's ability I have a problem with - I'm aware he's a good actor - but how little I seem to like the characters he plays.

Am not sure why that is, though - but it's kind of the same with Jude Law; apart from in Road to Perdition and Sherlock Holmes, I always find myself hoping someone onscreen will punch him in the face.

Posted by: DoubtingT | July 5, 2011 11:09 PM

@Cyprien

At one time I used to drive past a fried chicken place whose sign said "Cluck-U." I don't think they are in business any more. (Probably just as well, their next establishment might have been "Cluck-U-2.")

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 5, 2011 11:11 PM

random question: is anyone here who has watched Torchwood before mildly worried that Jack might "forget" that he's into guys, too, now that it's going to be an American show...?

Posted by: ibyea | July 5, 2011 11:13 PM

@Jadehawk
Doubt it. I think Russel T Davies is involved. Plus, it is not on the usual local channels.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 5, 2011 11:19 PM

At the end, I was left wanting a sequel.

Well, there's this. (I have no idea if it's any good.)

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 5, 2011 11:25 PM

I would love an internet made out of cookies, Carlie, thank you.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 5, 2011 11:25 PM

Jadehawk, it's going to be an American show? Really? Crap, it will be utterly ruined...and of course Jack won't be pansexual anymore. Can't go upsetting the idiots.

Posted by: MrFire | July 5, 2011 11:29 PM

Algernon re Johnny Depp:

But...but...

"Me, I'm dishonest. And a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly."

Posted by: Sunday Afternoon | July 5, 2011 11:31 PM

A somewhat amusing personal Billy Connolly story:

Being from Scotland and living in the states, I was pleased when Billy played a theatre for a week near by. It managed to coincide with my parents visiting so I asked them if they would like to go and see the Big Yin.

Now what you need to know is that my father is a retired minister and the above clip was part of the show. Cue a lot of squirming on my part...

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 5, 2011 11:34 PM

Jadehawk:

I'm hoping it won't be too bad, but I'm worried.

I didn't even know about this, but yeah, I'd be worried too. Besides, killing off Ianto? I didn't recover from that well, but that leaves it wide open to get Jack involved with someone else, and if it goes 'merican, it won't be with a male.

All I can think about is just how much some idiots are going to want to "tailor it for 'mericans", which is going to result in major stupid.

Posted by: MrFire | July 5, 2011 11:39 PM

Jesus Christ Superstar has far too much quotable shit.

But I'll give it a try.

Can you show me now that I would not be killed in vain?
Show me just a little of your omnipresent brain!
Show me there's a reason for your wanting me to die
You're far to keen on 'when' and 'how' - but not so hot on 'why'...

Posted by: John Morales | July 5, 2011 11:41 PM

Caine,

All I can think about is just how much some idiots are going to want to "tailor it for 'mericans", which is going to result in major stupid.

FWIW, (and I'm going back a ways here), the American version of Man About the House (called Three's Company) was somewhat Americanised, but nowhere as disappointing as one might think¹.

(Point taken, though)

--

¹ IMO and In My Recollection, of course! :)

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 5, 2011 11:45 PM

ibyea:

the show won't water down Jack's pansexuality. I don't know how reliable it is, though.

Eh, it might be true, since it's on a pay channel, but I have no doubt it will get stupid in a hurry, in that extra-special 'merican way. Maybe not. At any rate, I'm not going to be paying more money than I already do to my satellite provider for St*rz.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 5, 2011 11:52 PM

I'm afraid of rabbits. I loved Watership Down as a book, but I'm pretty sure the movie would be hard to sit through.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 5, 2011 11:58 PM

Greg Laden is prolific, for sure. Post number 4 on Elevator Guy is quite good—if potentially triggering—and worth forwarding to men of one's acquaintance.

Cross the street about a block back and "pass" the lady that way. Same with a potential head-on encounter. If you see a woman walking towards you in the middle of the night on a lonely urban street, ... cross the street to not stress her out. ... All men. ALL men who have given sufficient consideration to women's position in our society do this walking trick. If you are a man and you do not know about this trick then there is a problem with you.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 6, 2011 12:00 AM

Set 2min 2sec! Yay me!

Posted by: John Morales | July 6, 2011 12:04 AM

Cross the street about a block back and "pass" the lady that way. Same with a potential head-on encounter. If you see a woman walking towards you in the middle of the night on a lonely urban street, ... cross the street to not stress her out. ... All men.

No.

That's validating victim mentality; I don't do that.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 6, 2011 12:09 AM

John:

Straight as I might, I gotta admit Barrowman is "a bit of alright"

Yes, he is. However, that doesn't make up for a bad show. Who knows, maybe the 'merican version will be good, but I'm not tacking on yet more money on top of what I already pay, so I won't be watching.

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | July 6, 2011 12:13 AM

*sigh*

I sent this to one person via Facebook, but I figure I could just as easily post it here...

----

I've been reading on Elevatorgate, and I came across this:

"But the question that always comes up on topics like this, even on feminist blogs with seemingly feminist men is, "How do I ask out a woman without being creepy?" It just never occurs to these men that maybe they can be interested in a woman but just never ask her out at all. It's like missing a potential romantic opportunity is the worst possible thing in the world. How about instead of trying to hit on a woman in a non-creepy way, you just don't hit on her at all? Even if you think she's really pretty or hawt or clever or funny, maybe you could just keep your opinion to yourself for once?" (from http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/07/point-you-are-proving-it.html)

For some reason this grates on me. I'm not completely sure why. Maybe it's because I'm being tarred with the same brush as the other asshats, and maybe it's because the person who wrote that comment ("banancat") doesn't seem to understand what it's like to be lonely and paralyzed by fear of being perceived as 'creepy'. I already "keep my opinion to myself", to the point where people have accused me of being gay, precisely because I don't know what's considered 'creepy' and what's considered 'acceptable'. I don't want to cross that line, so I don't do *anything* that could be considered 'forward'. The message here is clearly, "you are not to express any sort of interest in anyone until they first do so to you", and that bothers me.

Please tell me I'm misunderstanding the intent, or that this person is wrong. I've already come close enough to giving a handgun a blowjob over this subject without this sort of message.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 6, 2011 12:15 AM

FUCK YOU, MORALES.

ibyea, that scene is so gruesome in the book, but luckily I don't formulate mental pictures well, so I made it through (though it was still hard to read). The movie...just no. *shudders*

Wowbagger, carrots are only one of the scary things about rabbits. Blech. Those eyes...

Posted by: MrFire | July 6, 2011 12:21 AM

@315: wtf

Perhaps you pace extra-fiercely too, just to drive the point home?

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | July 6, 2011 12:25 AM

slothrop,

Though I imagine it'll be a small comfort, you aren't the only one who feels like that; the idea of being surrounded by socially competent people makes me very uncomfortable as well, and I tend to avoid socialising unless it's pretty much guaranteed that there'll be at least one other person there who's on a similar 'wavelength' to myself that I can talk to.

This caused me some concern with the GAC in Melbourne last year, but running into the other Pharyngulites (Kel, Rorschach, Bride of Shrek and a few others) meant it worked out okay for me.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 6, 2011 12:31 AM

slothrop, you aren't alone in your feelings, however, in the future, would you please you paragraphs, line breaks, something? Some of us have a difficult time reading walls of text. Thank you.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 6, 2011 12:33 AM

Aargh, please use paragraphs, line breaks, something?

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 6, 2011 12:43 AM

Benjamin, the idea is that the sex will take care of itself if you get to know someone well enough*, so just treat women like people. It's not that hard, but that may not be what you want to hear. If you can't be interested in a woman as a person, regardless of sexual opportunity, you will be creepy. There's no work-around for objectification that will make someone be a welcoming person.

*That includes the option that it won't happen.

Posted by: John Morales | July 6, 2011 12:50 AM

[CBF = "Can't be fucked?]

Posted by: MrFire | July 6, 2011 12:57 AM

Those eyes...

The thing about a rabbit is he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, he doesn't seem to be livin'...until he sniffs ya. Then those black eyes roll over white and then...ah then ya hear that terrible high-pitched cooin'...the owner turns red....and despite all the oohin' man aahin' they come in and they...nuzzle ya to pieces.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 6, 2011 12:59 AM

Would you care to define "victim mentality"?

Without that, the closest I can get is to point out that you are conflating a genuine and well-grounded fear with this apparently mistaken "victim mentality".

Posted by: beetle, licensed porpupine breeder | July 6, 2011 1:03 AM

slothrop, and Benjamin, I mentioned the conversation that led to an attraction for me in one of the threads that shall not be named, but only vaguely. I don't know if this will help or not, but here's a bit more detail that was like opening new doors for me. It was like I stumbled into that mythical place where men don't view women as sex first and maybe something else later.

I had to talk to a professor about an exam problem, and it turns out that we are both chatterboxes and ended up talking for hours. Mostly about our kids-he's a single dad. At some point, when I speaking, I glanced at the clock and realized that hours had passed, and surprise registered on my face apparently, because he made note of it. The delightful part was that that meant that he was paying attention to what I was saying, looking at my face, and not sneaking a glance at my tits. (I typically wear fitted tops, because I like them, and I just ignore the usual ogling, because, well, that's the world we live in, right?)

After he made the comment, and I replied that I just didn't realize how late it had gotten, he got up, and signaled the end of the conversation. Nothing was "left up to me" it was an actual give and take. Instant crush. There were some other conversations later, when I sensed that there was attraction growing, but can anybody say inappropriate? He's my prof and I'm married. So nothing physical ever happened.

I know it's frustrating because the culture we live in really doesn't support this way of being with the opposite sex, women and men are raised to believe that "making passes" and "being hit on" are normal, natural, and that's just how it is. But I can tell you, from this perspective, just how lovely it is not to be seen first and foremost as a walking sex toy.

Think about how you have made your male friends. Do you see a man and think, "Well, he looks interesting!" Somehow I doubt it. You can't tell much at all about most people given a glance. Most friendships grow out of some mutual interest, and as you discover more about the other person you either realize that they suck and you want nothing to do with them, or you find more common ground. This is really what women are saying when we say treat us as people. Most of us are not going to bite, especially if we realize from the get go that sex is not the thing that is on your mind. And when you come up to us, out of the blue, to start a conversation? We know.

Posted by: beetle, licensed porpupine breeder | July 6, 2011 1:10 AM

John Morales,

It's not validating victim mentality(I don't even know what that is, I don't feel like a victim when something like that happen, I feel nervous and angry) it's sending a signal physically to an unknown woman from an unknown man that he(you) is not a rapist. That's it. It's like body language from a distance. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have.

Posted by: mfheadcase | July 6, 2011 1:17 AM

John Morales, crossing the street as Laden suggested is not validating a "victim mentality", it is simply signalling that you are not someone who has an intention of victimizing the hypothetical woman.

It gives her one less thing to worry about for the night.

And I say this as a man who was once very nearly pepper sprayed for not having gotten this point before.

I had walked behind a woman for a bit over a block on a dark street in what was apparently considered a nasty part of Chicago. Just as she reached her vehicle, i was pulling my keys out of my pocket for my own two cars past hers, she understandably, in retrospect, misunderstood this action.

I managed to show her that it was my keys in my hand, pointed out my car, let he know which way i would be driving and offered to leave first to avoid further confusion.

Then to my shame, because I was not yet fully clue-full just a scared but honest fast talker, ranted about the crazy bitch to myself on the way home.

Two nights later I saw on the news about another rape in that neighborhood, the description vague enough that I fit it. I hadn't been aware of the previous rapes in that area though they had apparently been on the news for over a week.

Posted by: John Morales | July 6, 2011 1:19 AM

[to those who responded, I assure you I'm not ignoring you]

--

Cath, I undertook not to respond, and I'll adhere to that.

(I do care, but I promised)

Posted by: John Morales | July 6, 2011 1:28 AM

Caine,

First, it wasn't Carlie you quoted, it was me.

<blush>

My bad.

(You're both high in my estimation, you're both very feminist, your nyms both begin with 'C', and I'm a bit pissed).

--

(in vino veritas)

Posted by: John Morales | July 6, 2011 1:48 AM

beetle, I'm trying really hard not to respond, but I've failed. I'm weak.

(You might want to Google the question you posed me; PS you too have my respect)

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 6, 2011 1:51 AM

John, just shut up.

With that, I'm out.

Posted by: beetle, licensed porpupine breeder | July 6, 2011 2:04 AM

PS you too have my respect)

Somehow this just doesn't seem as good as an internet made of cookies. :(

You also seem to have misplaced your ~haughty sniff~

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 6, 2011 2:17 AM

deflounce:

mfheadcase:

Nearly jumped in several times in the EG threads, but always refreshed before posting, and saw what I had to say phrased more clearly by several regulars and chose not to throw the signal to noise ratio further toward noise.

You would have been signal, not noise. I don't blame you for not jumping in, though, that was one hell of a cesspit.

Benjamin:

Almost every couple I know started out *as* *a* *couple*.

Right, because almost every couple you know is all there is, full stop, even though it's an almost.

but friendship doesn't work either.

Oh? It certainly worked in my case, and it wasn't at all like that moronic, sexist cartoon you linked.

/deflounce

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | July 6, 2011 2:26 AM

"Right, because almost every couple you know is all there is, full stop, even though it's an almost."

I never said it's "all there is", but it is a reasonable sample. And the "almost" is because I don't know about some. (No couple I know in meatspace started as friends, to my knowledge. Some started out as coworkers, though.)

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | July 6, 2011 3:07 AM

... and, as expected when discussing this subject, I feel like aerating my skull. I wonder if my insurance (which I get for another month, yay) will cover elective castration or an elective lobotomy.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 6, 2011 3:31 AM

If we're still talking about movies, another one I liked was Evolution (from the same director as Ghostbusters, and equally awesome).

====

Benjamin,

The exact opposite seems to be the case for most people I know. Almost every couple I know started out *as* *a* *couple*. I understand that "hey, let's fuck" isn't a particularly good way to start a relationship, but friendship doesn't work either.

Well, I disagree (though admittedly I'm a sample of one, anecdote is not data, etc).

I've never really understood why there has to be a categorical divide between "friend" and "romantic partner"; surely the latter is, in essence, a close and trusted friend with whom one happens to have sex? I can't imagine wanting to have an intimate relationship with someone I didn't already like and trust. (Indeed, emotional intimacy is ultimately more important than physical intimacy, IMO.)

I also think it's important to avoid being taken in by all the pseudoscientific sexist bullshit "advice" about relationships that one encounters online and in the media. If there's one thing we can conclude from the evidence, it's that there is no such thing as "what men want" or "how to talk to women". (Any more than it would be sensible to read an advice column on "what Canadians want" or "how to talk to middle-aged people", as though everyone in these demographic categories were exactly the same.) Men and women are individual people, with individual personalities and wants and needs and desires; if you want to know what a person likes or wants, the only way of telling is to get to know that person, rather than stereotyping him or her based on gender.

The other toxic thing is the way that our culture (particularly USian culture, but it's spilled over onto this side of the Atlantic too) tries to force both men and women to treat relationships as some kind of trophy, to be won in the "game" of dating, and attempts to crush the self-esteem of those who don't succeed in "getting laid". In the end, dating isn't a competitive sport, and a relationship with another person isn't a trophy (and if you treat it as such, both you and your partner will probably end up miserable). It's not something to be "won". Rather, it should be a mutually-satisfying interaction between two people who actually like and care about each other. Having a relationship just for the sake of it, with the first person who becomes available, probably wouldn't make either of you happier (IMO).

Though perhaps I'm wrong. I certainly wouldn't claim any great breadth of experience or wisdom in this area, and, of course, it's all deeply subjective and personal.

Though to me the whole US-style "dating" thing seems a bit creepy. Like interviewing for a lover.

^^This. Something I've never done, and never will.

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | July 6, 2011 3:49 AM

"Having a relationship just for the sake of it, with the first person who becomes available, probably wouldn't make either of you happier (IMO)."

You see, it's not about having a relationship. It's about having the option of having a relationship. It's about being able to go ask someone out and have a less than 100% chance of rejection.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | July 6, 2011 4:03 AM

Beenjamin:

Linking to that cartoon was a serious foot-fault: For one thing, it doesn't even illustrate your point (unless I'm giving you way too much credit), and for another, the point it does illustrate — that one especially creepy way to get a date is to deliberately play on a friend's deepest insecurities — really isn't one you want to associate yourself with, as at least a couple people have already pointed out.

That said, I have an inkling that I know what you're getting at: While nonromantic friends can and often do become romantic/sexual couples, it's certainly also true that many romantic/sexual relationships are that from the beginning, and attempts to convert friendships to romantic relationships often fail.

To those responding to Benjamin: Do we really mean to be telling him that the only way to end up in a sexual relationship is to drift into one obliquely? That he must achieve a zenlike indifference to sex before it will come to him? I don't think that's really what anyone is saying, but I can easily imagine Benjamin hearing the conversation that way. Surely there are decent, non-creepy, non-objectifying, honest ways to look for romance, or even "just" sex? Don't we all believe that romantic relationships, and even casual sex, are perfectly cromulent forms of human interaction?

Benjamin, the advice you've been getting to treat prospective partners as people is paramount, but I disagree with any suggestion that desire sex automatically means you're treating the person you desire it with as less than a person. Mind you, I don't think anyone here actually means to be saying it does, but just in case it was sounding that way to you....

As for your fears of being creepy... I'm reminded of a novel I stumbled upon years ago, called Blow Negative. No, it's not that kind of book: It's about the U.S. submarine service (a highly fictionalized version of the Hyman Rickover story, in fact... but I digress), and in one sequence, a junior officer has to "qualify" in subs by learning every system on the boat, including every failure mode. In describing this process, the author points out that many people wash out at this juncture in their careers, because the knowledge of all the possible ways the boat might fail catastrophically becomes mentally paralyzing.

Like Walton (but in different ways), you have learned a lot since you first started posting here; I'm guessing all that you've learned about all the ways we men can get it wrong may be a little paralyzing. But here's the thing: Most of the most likely failure modes really aren't catastrophic. If you're mindful of, and concerned about, not being creepy, you manifestly won't be knowingly so — the fact that you're earnestly asking the question is half the answer. And while no human interaction is proof against error or misunderstanding, if you apply some situation awareness (i.e., no frickin' elevators, please, or dark urban streets), honesty, and judiciousness of expression, and if you pay very close attention to the feedback you're getting, I'm guessing you won't do any harm that can't be repaired by an immediate, sincere apology.

Not for nothin', but... I've been sick for most of the last week, and missed pretty much the whole "elevatorgate" thing (might not have known it was going on at all if it hadn't leaked into Facebook), but it seems to me that if Elevator Guy had at some (early) point in the story smacked his own forehead and said something like, "Jeez, I only just now realized how creepy this must seem. What an idiot I've been! I'm so sorry," and then backed right off, many, many pixels could have been spared.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | July 6, 2011 4:08 AM

Urrrk!

Beenjamin:

...was only fat-finger disease, I swear. I hate screwing up other people's names.

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | July 6, 2011 4:18 AM

Bill:

"Linking to that cartoon was a serious foot-fault: For one thing, it doesn't even illustrate your point (unless I'm giving you way too much credit)"

Maybe this is a better example. Trying to move from friendship to romance always seems to be considered a Nice Guy™ thing to do (and therefore automatically creepy).

"Benjamin, the advice you've been getting to treat prospective partners as people is paramount, but I disagree with any suggestion that desire sex automatically means you're treating the person you desire it with as less than a person. Mind you, I don't think anyone here actually means to be saying it does, but just in case it was sounding that way to you...."

That's precisely what it sounds like. 'You have to build a friendship, with absolutely no sexual thoughts whatsoever, then maybe, someday, you might end up with a romantic relationship with that person (but probably not).'

"I'm guessing all that you've learned about all the ways we men can get it wrong may be a little paralyzing."

No, what I've learned is that it's impossible to learn all the ways, since no matter how many ways I discover, I'm going to manage to fuck it up in a new and unexpected manner.

"And while no human interaction is proof against error or misunderstanding, if you apply some situation awareness (i.e., no frickin' elevators, please, or dark urban streets), honesty, and judiciousness of expression, and if you pay very close attention to the feedback you're getting, I'm guessing you won't do any harm that can't be repaired by an immediate, sincere apology."

That's precisely the problem: I get no feedback. I can avoid the obvious fuckups, but when I discover one of the aforementioned new and unexpected fuckups, I don't even realize it. Barring the conversational equivalent of a slap in the face, I can't tell whether things are going well or not.

So I don't run the risk of a fuckup. Instead, I contemplate going down on a Glock.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | July 6, 2011 4:22 AM

HI
Sorry, I can't read up anything, just wanted to let you all know that I'm fine but my laptop isn't, so I'm sitting at my FIL's letting the world know I'm still alive.
Ordered a new one and am hopefully back in a few days.

Posted by: theophontes (θεός γαμώτο) | July 6, 2011 4:30 AM

@ Benjamin

You see, it's not about having a relationship. It's about having the option of having a relationship. It's about being able to go ask someone out and have a less than 100% chance of rejection.

There is no quick fix. There is no magical formula. You cannot go into this like a cowboy.

Take your time. Nuture all your relationships and let them grow and evolve in their own manner. Nothing can be forced.

If you care for someone they will realise this soon enough. They will want to spend time with you and very occasionally they will want to take the friendship a step further.

Few people will reject genuine caring on your part. The more friends you have the more likely you will be able to form serious relationships. Take it one step at a time.

I suspect you are perhaps in a vicious cycle now. It will take time to turn this around and turn it into the virtuous cycle that will help you find the relationship (optional) that you seek.

Strangers might reject you 100% of the time. But as people start realise you are a pretty amazing person, your odds will change completely. (It is not about chances though. As Walton says, it is not a competition.)

If you need to chat or just want hugs, we're all here for you on TET.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | July 6, 2011 4:36 AM

Benjamin:

That's precisely the problem: I get no feedback....

I doubt that. It doesn't matter whether the way you're behaving is on somebody's list of Teh Ways Teh Menz Fuck Up™; what matters is whether the person you're talking to finds your behavior creepy in the circumstances... and if she does, there will be feedback. You just have to practice seeing/hearing it.

And if you're being truly attentive, and you're not getting any "hey, that's creepy" signals, then guess what? You're probably not being creepy! Pat yourself on the back.

Of course...

Barring the conversational equivalent of a slap in the face, I can't tell whether things are going well or not.

...things may still not be "going well" in the sense of getting you where you want to be, but that's a different issue from whether your behavior is shameful. It's possible to fail at trying to start up a romantic relationship with someone, and still not be a creep.

So I don't run the risk of a fuckup. Instead, I contemplate going down on a Glock.

Dude, this is seriously scary talk; I almost commented on your similarly themed Facebook status. I don't for a moment minimize the pain of loneliness, but if you're really having suicidal thoughts, please talk to someone (in meatspace, I mean) you can trust, because we don't want to lose you; if you're not, please find a different metaphor.

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | July 6, 2011 4:50 AM

"if you're really having suicidal thoughts, please talk to someone (in meatspace, I mean) you can trust"

It's rare that I don't have those thoughts. Usually they tend to the "what if". They virtually never progress beyond contemplation. (Besides, I own no gun.)

The only way to win is cheat
And lay it down before I'm beat
And to another give my seat
For that's the only painless feat...

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 6, 2011 5:01 AM

John Morales:

I don't get the street crossing thing, personally, because it is distracting and when I am alone at night walking I am watching very closely. Any unpredictable movement is suspect.

I'd just say, be aware the other person likely perceives you as a potential threat.

If it makes you feel better I'm not just aware that any person on the street may be a rapist. In fact, I'm actually just as aware that the other person may be a mugger.

FWIW, I don't like being robbed either.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 6, 2011 5:10 AM

Oh, yeah, I may be basing this view of dating too much on US TV and movies. It seems weird to *me*. It's not that there can't be good ways of doing it, but you're better off asking people from your own culture and age-group. In my case I've always met people first in group settings.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 6, 2011 5:20 AM

oh, and: plenty of Americans, even socially awkward Americans, find partners without "dating". I have not dated either of my American boyfriends, for example.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 6, 2011 5:29 AM

Aaah, Walton... just a quick question. (I tried to ask earlier, but was rudely portcullissed by the Tentacled Laird.) If I am a bona fide decedent of the House of Stuart, surely I am due a piece of Old Blighty? (Well, at least 1/8th share - my preference would be to rule the Cotswolds).

Please inform her Majesty, that if She ("They"?) is not amenable to this idea, I shall once more cast my lot with the republican cause.

Au contraire; under the Act of Settlement 1701, the throne may only be inherited by the lineal descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover. The House of Stuart has long since been deprived of its rights of succession. (The few remaining Jacobites, of course, dispute the legitimacy of this deprivation, and argue that Mary II and William of Orange were usurpers and that the 1701 Act is invalid because it was not signed into law by the rightful King.)

Furthermore, the throne can normally only be inherited by one person at a time, according to the law of primogeniture. (William and Mary were an exception, but William reigned de jure uxoris - that is to say, by right of his marriage to Mary.) If the Jacobites were correct, then the rightful king would be Franz, Duke of Bavaria, of Franconia and in Swabia, Count Palatine of the Rhine (to whom Jacobites refer as King Francis I). Other people who happen to be descendants of the House of Stuart (of whom there are plenty, such as the Duquesa de Alba, who has more hereditary titles than anyone else in the world) would be much further down the line of succession.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 6, 2011 5:50 AM

So I got my tablet exchanged today right, new device, no worries. But this time I learned from the experience last time, and rooted the thing straight away, installed a file manager, and Bob's your uncle now. Give me shit again tablet, and I just wipe you clean and start again. Bloody Android, you're not going to fuck with me again. Still waiting for the update to 3.1, btw. Nice gadget, though, tbh.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 6, 2011 6:24 AM

John, I was impressed by the punches you were landing in the elevator threads.

I am glad for the kindness if someone following me at night crosses to the other side of the street, but I often cross first (and if they then do too, then I get really jumpy).

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | July 6, 2011 6:46 AM

have you seen The Machinist?

Apparently Christian Bale got down to 120 pounds to play the part. Google is telling me he's between 6'0 adn 6'2.

Then to play the goddamn Batman he got up to 220 in six months. That's fuckin' insane (and probably impossible without steroids).

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 6, 2011 7:26 AM

This is the most recent comment at BlagHag right now, and it's fabulous:

Pieter B wrote: "Back on April 20, Elyse Anders tweeted ("twote "?) 'My favorite thing about discussing sexism is that the conversation always turns into how girls are too stupid to get that it's not sexist.'"

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 6, 2011 7:44 AM

Walton:

I've never really understood why there has to be a categorical divide between "friend" and "romantic partner"; surely the latter is, in essence, a close and trusted friend with whom one happens to have sex?

You've just nailed my relationship with Mr Darkheart. Above all, he is my closest friend.

Feynmaniac:

Then to play the goddamn Batman he got up to 220 in six months. That's fuckin' insane (and probably impossible without steroids).

According to the dvd extras on Batman Begins, his doctors though he was gonna die from the weight gain. He did it anyway.

Posted by: SQB (fuck death) | July 6, 2011 7:51 AM

Algernon, according to the director

"In many ways, [Bug is] a black-comedy love story," Friedkin dryly notes.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | July 6, 2011 8:03 AM

Good morning, Pharyngula.

My kitten isn't going to be coming this week :( He's too light to get the rabies vaccine and get neutered so he needs to gain some weight before I can get him from Beau, but I'll go down to Richmond and at least visit / play / cuddle with him.

I'm not sure how many of you followed my blog, but I actually shifted it over to my pseudonym e-mail address and saw that only one of the people here noticed. I think Jadehawk and Cerberus followed, but can't recall if anyone else did (link is in 'nym.) I did this because I don't trust Facebook to not suddenly associate with my Blog, and would rather not have my big existential posts showing up on my family's news feeds.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | July 6, 2011 8:10 AM

@EnglishAtheist:

LOL, that's a great idea, I love it!

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 6, 2011 8:48 AM

... and that's coming from Sven!

Seriously though, Sven, you did good in the EG threads. Thanks.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | July 6, 2011 9:07 AM

Set : 1min 16secs
----------
I've been reading comments in second to last installment of the elevator argument at Friendly Atheist and I'm pretty disappointed. Most of the saner commentators were people whose names I recognized from here. I would expect better from Hemant Mehta as well*, but he seems content pretending that there is no problem despite it becoming obvious in the shitstorm that happened after one little, well intentioned advice by Rebecca.

* Disclaimer : I haven't read the latest post yet, I've only finished with the comments on the one before.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 6, 2011 9:14 AM

see the special guest?

Yeah, I can't think of a better guest for that event.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | July 6, 2011 9:25 AM

Read the newest post now. I should have withheld judgment, Mehta stopped ignoring the problem. I still don't agree with him saying that Dawkins was wrong but we should give him some slack because "he’s certainly no dummy". Yeah, he isn't. Which is precisely the reason why I expect more from him than some average person. If I hold someone in higher esteem, I might ignore a minor blunder. But this turned into a major blunder that can't be ignored precisely because I think Dawkins is pretty close to brilliant and should examine that blind spot he's got when it comes to acknowledging sexism.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 6, 2011 9:35 AM

Seriously though, Sven, you did good in the EG threads. Thanks.

I said so in one of those threads but it was pretty buried by then, so thanks from me too. As soul-sucking as those threads were, the amount that people jumped in and pulled a lot of weight was really heartening.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | July 6, 2011 9:52 AM

Benjamin: Get some help.

Morales: If I'm not mistaken, your plan for invalidating "victim mentality" is to act as creepy as possible, and then do no harm?

If so, this is the weirdest vigilante-type shit I have ever encountered*. Do you have a costume? I suggest wearing a mask, that you nervously doff and don, a trenchcoat that is alternatively left tightly closed or hanging open, and a pair of shorts/t-shirt.

I have a sweet vigilante name if you haven't thought one up: The Creepy Yet Harmless Stranger.

*Not really, come to think of it, but those are tales for a different time.

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | July 6, 2011 9:56 AM

Lamarck's zombie is loose again - Environs Prompt Advantageous Gene Mutations as Plants Grow; Changes Passed to Progeny

Maybe. Possibly. Perhaps. What do I know?

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 6, 2011 10:07 AM

Set: 1 Min, 1 Sec! strange god's script is really helpful, I think. :)

I thought it was going to shave off maybe 3 seconds, tops, but after trying it out, I think it does more. By removing the distraction of the popups, it feels like it makes the game easier to focus on.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 6, 2011 10:10 AM

RTL - I don't see why not. Epigenetics is what tells your eye cells not to make bone, so no reason not to think external influences could affect which genes get used as well.

Benjamin - I remember you discussing before that sometimes your body chemistry can affect your down cycles. Have you been eating well lately? Some protein and a bit of sugar and a double-check on you medicine doses and a nice walk in the sun might help a little.

Posted by: slothrop | July 6, 2011 10:14 AM

Sorry about the 'wall of text' thing, I generally write only to myself and am not used to breaking things out that way.

I'm way past this 'things'll get better' stuff...for a lot of people I know, they won't, and it's almost insulting to insist because you have experience with it that it will work for someone else. I think I mentioned that I have lots of friends, most of them female, and I can (and have many times) talk(ed) to them for hours and lost track of time and all that. I'm comfortable in rooms full of socially competent people.

There seems to be this assumption that 'it'll happen eventually meeting the right people and being a good person and seeing people as ends and not means', but that is so just not true. That's just some sort of faith AFAICT. It is not at all MY experience that spending lots of time with a person you care about and who cares a great deal about you in any way leads to a biological urge.

I'm not going to kill myself over it, my friends and my music give me a life worth living, but I'm definitely tired of hearing about how people hook up and if I just do what they did it'll all turn out. That's out-and-out priviledge to me. Not nearly on the level as most talked about here, true, but a lifetime of not being part of 'that' group (which includes people that can meet anyone in a bar...I've always been fascinated by that) just has gotten to be too much.

I've looked into chemical castration, but it would appear that here in the US you have to commit some sort of horrible crime. That is obviously not an option. Does anyone know if the more lax FDA-equivalent laws in Europe allow for such things?

Posted by: broboxley OT | July 6, 2011 10:25 AM

Curious, why do people think castration leads to not thinking about sex? All of my urges originate in my mind, then flow to other regions if there is a chance of fulfillment.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | July 6, 2011 10:32 AM

@broboxley:

Lowering testosterone (whether through chemical or physical means) has a negative effect on sex drive.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | July 6, 2011 10:37 AM

Oh god I hate this - http://xkcd.com/921/

Stupid UPS, I WAS THERE ALL DAY!!! You didn't even try to deliver my package!

Posted by: John Morales | July 6, 2011 10:46 AM

[I guess I asked for it, but it makes me kinda sad]

(I think a break is in order)

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 6, 2011 10:55 AM

Relationships are among the things that make life worth living.

Dating sucks. In my single days, I never was able to work the whole dating thing. Probably the most successful blind date I was ever on was technically a failure. A friend (who I'd been dating) thought I'd hit it off with another friend of hers. That friend showed up with another female friend, and I wound up dating the friend of my blind date off and on for 3 years!

The thing is, I'm not shy. I'm pretty extroverted, and I can talk to just about anyone. Even so, I had dry spells when I wasn't dating anyone that lasted YEARS. Those dry spells coincided with the time I was in grad school, so part of it was not having time.

Also, I am different from the norm. I have no interest in small talk. I'm not interested in pop culture. I never wanted kids. So, it was more than a little difficult to find a woman who
was likeminded.

Moreover, it took awhile for me to grow into myself. In the end, though, things did get better. I became more comfortable with myself. And when I finally did meet a likeminded woman, things clicked.

My recommendation to Benjamin and others feeling similarly frustrated is this.

First, get comfortable in your own skin. Nobody wants to spend time with someone who is trying to escape themselves--whether that escape is with a bottle of tequila or a Glock. I've dated the suicidal--it's mindfuck. You have to want to live before someone is going to want to live with you.

Second, learn what it is you have to offer. I learned that I was a good listener, a kind (though not always nice) person, insightful and funny. I do not know a woman who doesn't like to laugh--and if you can learn to laugh at yourself, then you can turn even a bad situation into one you remember fondly.

Third, start talking to people--and by talking, I really mean listening. You don't have to be an extrovert to do this. Every one you meet--try to find out at least one interesting thing about them--and experience, a memory, a dream, a regret.

Remember that every person you meet is practice for when you meet a person you want to spend the rest of your life with.

End of Dutch Uncle lecture.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 6, 2011 10:57 AM

es, that's as intended. That's actually it's origin, from 'scooby' (with or without 'doo') through 'skooby' to 'SQB', since there are more people out there who wanted to use that nick on IRC.

Huh. And it always put me in mind of Q-Bert.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 6, 2011 11:11 AM

strange gods, I missed a few iterations (due to spending my time in Florida riding jet skis and getting horribly sunburned despite multiple applications of SPF 80 sunscreen (goddamn redhead complexion)), so could you point me in the direction of the script you wrote? I'm guessing it just does away with the pop-ups telling you how many you have left to go.

Regarding the "American" dating style, I'm not sure I've done it either. The story I referenced above was completely intended to be a one-night-stand from my end. But we did end up dating for quite a while. That guy was a special case. Most of the time, I just start hanging out with someone, and if we're attracted to each other (or sometimes if we're just bored), sex usually comes up. But I am a very open, accepting, and sexual person, so that works fine for me. It doesn't work that way for everyone, but I think toned-down versions of it probably come pretty damn close for most normal folks.

Benjamin: Oh, I'm not really interested in getting to know you or spending time with you. Really, I'm not particularly interested in you. This is about my self esteem. So thanks!

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 6, 2011 11:20 AM

But, as an aging, perhaps eventually retiring, feminist super hero myself, I'd offer her one piece of advice. The atheist feminists need to discard the trope that misogyny and the patriarchy are born of religion.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 6, 2011 11:30 AM

And yes, unsafeWindow is unsafe, which is why this script is limited to run only on the setgame.com site. I hope they don't get hacked.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 6, 2011 11:33 AM

SC - I think Isis' main message that getting rid of religion won't get rid of sexism is a good one, but her let's protect Catholicism from criticism motives behind it are pretty blatant.

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | July 6, 2011 11:41 AM

I'm afraid of rabbits.

From Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Once More with Feeling (the relevant part starts at about 00:38 and runs to about 1:02).
-
Benjamin, for what it's worth, I don't agree with the posting you cite @319. I can't see declaring skeptic/atheist/feminist/some-or-all-of-the-above conferences as "sex-free zones". There's a social aspect there, after all, or why not just hammer out the subject on the Web? I do think that hook-ups aren't the raisin date of these meetings, but the subject should be approachable with the same sensitivity and tact there, that should be the case at any other social occasion.

If everybody waits to express interest until the other person does, nobody will ever express interest. Nobody ever gets laid anywhere, anytime. Handguns register a record number of blowjobs received. Un-good; and it's not even as if the handguns get any enjoyment out of it. Decomposing bodies everywhere. Curtain down.
-
Wowbagger, get outta my head. Right now.
:)

Without the presence of "familiar" Pharyngulites at Skepticon, I doubt I would have gone at all, and if I had gone, I'd have felt uncomfortable and alone, and probably wouldn't have spoken to anyone all day long. I certainly wouldn't be planning to go back next year.
-

Posted by: slothrop | July 6, 2011 11:54 AM

@443 and 444

I appreceiate that most would want there not to be 'sex-free zones', but what about the many people who don't fit into that group? I realize what I need to do is just find a male-only atheist group, but I don't think something like that is going to happen in my lifetime given the dearth of atheist groups in the first place.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 6, 2011 11:57 AM

I can't see declaring skeptic/atheist/feminist/some-or-all-of-the-above conferences as "sex-free zones".

You do not get a pass on objectification just because women are going to be stuck in a room with you for several hours.

FFS, even clubs and events specifically designed for hook-ups (e.g., swingers' clubs) have a reasonable expectation of accepting the personhood of the others in attendance.

WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?! *head asplode*

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | July 6, 2011 12:01 PM

I understand that "hey, let's fuck" isn't a particularly good way to start a relationship, but friendship doesn't work either.

Over-generalisation, Benjamin. The longest-lasting marriages/relationships I know of, began as "just" friendships.
-
John Morales, all I can say is that the whole question of whether or not men should "have to" cross the street to avoid alarming us shy, delicate, panicky flower wouldn't be an issue if sexual victimisation of women by men weren't "Ubiquitous through Shadow".
-

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | July 6, 2011 12:13 PM

It's official: Even computers have more social aptitude than I do.

----

RemembersABeach: I've tried doing precisely that, but apparently I'm doing it wrong. I've had people tell me it comes off as creepy (like so).

----

Me attending a juggalo convention is a bad idea.

----

"I'm definitely tired of hearing about how people hook up and if I just do what they did it'll all turn out. That's out-and-out priviledge to me. Not nearly on the level as most talked about here, true, but a lifetime of not being part of 'that' group (which includes people that can meet anyone in a bar...I've always been fascinated by that) just has gotten to be too much."

This.

----

"FFS. Does everyone have to be your best fucking friend in order to be viewed as human? Because what I said was to treat women as *people*. I didn't say become friends first."

I *do* treat women as people. In fact, I usually treat women as people to the exclusion of considering them potential partners.

----

"Oh, I'm not really interested in getting to know you or spending time with you. Really, I'm not particularly interested in you. This is about my self esteem. So thanks!"

Way to straw-man me.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 6, 2011 12:17 PM

Oh, and Set: 10 min. 2 sec.

Guess I should've refreshed after trying to fiddle with sgbm's script for a bit >_<

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | July 6, 2011 12:22 PM

"So you treat them basically as sentient cats?"

No. I treat them exactly the same way I treat men.

Posted by: SC OM | July 6, 2011 12:26 PM

tbell's comment over there is pretty good:

You are absolutely correct. Religion is not the root cause of patriarchy and sexual prejudice. However, it does codify these things, imbue them with the force of law, and shield them with the reverence we give to tradition. Skeptical treatment of relgion and *all other things* is what's required.

***

Way to straw-man me.

Give me a break. That was based on reading your comments in this vein over months. I'm not sure if that is truly how you feel, but it is how you come across.

Posted by: beetle, licensed porpupine breeder | July 6, 2011 12:31 PM

slothrop @445,

I appreceiate that most would want there not to be 'sex-free zones', but what about the many people who don't fit into that group? I realize what I need to do is just find a male-only atheist group, but I don't think something like that is going to happen in my lifetime given the dearth of atheist groups in the first place.

Then it appears that you have more issues with women's autonomy than you care to think about. If going to a mixed group makes you only aware that some of the women might be having sex with someone else, and that's not fair, then you need to do some heavy introspection. You should be going to meetings/groups/volunteering/whatever for the activity itself. If any kind of relationship should develop that would be a pleasant surprise bonus.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | July 6, 2011 12:33 PM

Jadehawk:

American-style dating really is creepy-ass shit, no matter how many Americans wish to defend that disfunctional behavior.

It's not that I've ever wanted to defend "American-style dating"; it's that I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by that. It's admittedly been a very long time since I was single and dating myself, but when I was, all I meant by dating was simply being a romantically/sexually active single person. If there was any characteristically American system to it (creepy-ass or otherwise), I was unaware of it.

Then again, I was pretty clueless about a lot of things in those days, not least because I was nearly 2 years younger than my schoolmate-cohort (at a time of life when 2 years makes a big diff), so maybe I just missed the subtleties. Nevertheless, this...

I have not dated either of my American boyfriends, for example.

...sounds like an oxymoron to me, because in my usage of the word, anyone you describe as your boyfriend (but not fiance or husband or partner) is by definition (at least the definition I'm familiar with) the person you're dating... regardless of how you met or how your relationship became romantic/sexual (or, for that matter, whether you ever go out on discrete "dates").

I suspect this is really a difference in language/usage, rather than a deeper disconnect.

Jules:

FFS. Does everyone have to be your best fucking friend in order to be viewed as human? Because what I said was to treat women as *people*. I didn't say become friends first.

^^QFT^^ I knew you weren't saying that (I tried to say as much, but perhaps not clearly enough)... but I was also mortally certain that's how Benjamin was hearing it that way. I was just trying to steer (his part of) the conversation in useful directions.

FWIW, my own romantic attachments from my single days were with people I met relatively organically through shared social contexts — classmates, coworkers, people with whom I've shared a hobby or extracurricular activity — but most of them (including the one that turned out to be permanent) were not with people with whom I had a preexisting nonromantic friendship of any length. The range of my experience is somewhat limited, though, because by the time I left school, I was already engaged: I was never a post-collegiate single adult, and have no idea what it's like to try to meet romantic partners in that circumstance.

Posted by: slothrop | July 6, 2011 12:37 PM

Sorry but either I completely failed to write coherently (always a possibility) or you aren't listening. *I* was the one kinda suggesting the event be an asexual one for those who don't fit into the group of people who are the kinds other people find attractive in a romantic way.

I didn't say flirting is wrong, I'm just tired of being around it and people telling me that if I'm a DHB one day I'll get to do it.

And rapists, what?? I think you're referring to someone else...

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | July 6, 2011 12:40 PM

"Shutting off the notion of women as sexual beings is still dehumanizing."

So... viewing women as potential partners is dehumanizing... but not viewing women as potential partners is dehumanizing... WTF?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 6, 2011 12:42 PM

Sorry but either I completely failed to write coherently (always a possibility) or you aren't listening. *I* was the one kinda suggesting the event be an asexual one for those who don't fit into the group of people who are the kinds other people find attractive in a romantic way.

I didn't say flirting is wrong, I'm just tired of being around it and people telling me that if I'm a DHB one day I'll get to do it.

And rapists, what?? I think you're referring to someone else...

There have been a lot of intentionally obtuse jerks in weight of the Elevatorgate and I'm on a short fuse because of it. There's no problem that can be solved with issuing a Fatwa against fucking. Seriously, all that needs to be done is for people to be fucking aware of their actions and surroundings and take the feelings of others into account. What is so hard/offensive about this?

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 6, 2011 12:42 PM

I appreceiate that most would want there not to be 'sex-free zones', but what about the many people who don't fit into that group?

What group? The atheists that have sex group? Jesus Christ.

Basically, this sounds like you can't stand the thought of other people having sex. Unless they're having sex in front of you (without your permission), this is a seriously fucked up way to view things.

(Bah. I promised myself I wouldn't jump in. Too late.)

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 6, 2011 12:47 PM

So... viewing women as potential partners is dehumanizing... but not viewing women as potential partners is dehumanizing... WTF?

Viewing a woman as something to be fucked is dehumanizing. Viewing a sexual woman as asexual is insulting.

And like every one told you, treat people like people. And No you clearly do not think of them/treat them just like men.

Goddamn it straight people, is this really such a huge issue for you? Is it some sort of default that you split it down the genders into "Fuck and Don't Fuck" and consider all of one gender in one category and all in the other? There are people of both gender I am not interested in sexually, who are treated "normally". There are people of both genders I am interested in who I still treat 'normally'. The only real category split there should be is "people I am involved in/not involved in".

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 6, 2011 12:50 PM

Ing, I think you have misunderstood slothrop, who says he would prefer to hang out with men exclusively because watching men and women flirt makes him feel something like jealousy.

Posted by: RemembersABeach | July 6, 2011 12:52 PM

Benjamin - your cartoon made me laugh. I still feel like I'm forcing a creepy smile sometimes, because as I said, it doesn't come naturally to me.

I have the same problem reading other people. I have a friend at work who often interprets people for me.

her: He is saying he is unhappy with his co-worker.
me: Why doesn't he just say that?

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 6, 2011 12:52 PM

Bill D,
I see Jadehawks use of dating as roughly analogous to courting. Specific rituals built around keeping men and women separate until they are in a socially sanctioned relationship. So asking out, going steady, dates as just a couple, etc. The entire interaction seems geared towards ensuring that male/female interaction is codified and only happens in pair bond situations and tends to be promoted by pop culture movies and shows as normal.
I don't think it's normal, it certainly doesn't describe how most of my friends have entered long term relationships. Personally, I find the idea of setting people up or blind dates abhorent, asking someone to go on a romantic date who you don't already have a connection with somewhat farical and a little unsettling, and would prefer that people meet as a result of doing things where they happen to be together, not over a dinner table or waiting in line for a movie ticket.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 6, 2011 12:55 PM

Imagine someone my size strutting around in the middle of a famine-stricken area. Even if I'm not eating in front of them, it's still an insult: "Hey, look at me! I eat enough to get fat!"

A good analogy sir, except for one little point

THOSE PEOPLE WOULD BE DYING YOU STUPID SACK OF SHIT!!!!!!!

Your penis isn't going to fall off. Jesus Fuck Bunny Christ! How goddamn self absorbed can you be?

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | July 6, 2011 12:57 PM

"All women are either not-partners or partners. They aren't anything else."

That's because we're speaking in generalities. Each particular woman is a variety of things, possibly including "potential partner". I don't mention the other things because they're not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 6, 2011 12:57 PM

Seriously, Ben; tiny violin. Most of us usually agree that people deserve a right to live and thus would say the STARVING should be fed so they don't die. You on the other hand are not entitled to tail.

Posted by: slothrop | July 6, 2011 12:59 PM

Dhorvath, no, I don't think that is bad advice in general and I apologize if that's what came across. I'm not sure I would even call myself 'lonely'...as I've said I have a plentiful amount of friends and in many ways those relationships are very fulfilling.

I'm also aware that not every sexual encounter has emotional content: I've used prostitutes a couple times over the past twenty years (I had to know what sex was like at least in some form in my life), and am aware of the emotional disconnect and humiliation that comes from seeing that (disinterested, disgusted) look in her eyes, and I want the voluntary chem castration to avoid putting myself in that situation again (I'm not that desperate now for physical contact, but I know in the next few years that urge will come again...)

I was just speaking for myself and the advice people have given only to me. I don't doubt that that advice is sound with many people who just need to get out of their shell, find the right group, get over their emotional problems, etc.

But I've been there, done that, and whenever I hear people speak so cavalierly about sexual relationships as though they were something everyone has a possibility of obtaining, it's just annoying.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 6, 2011 1:01 PM

I've been sized up for a mugging twice, at least as far as I know, and in each case I've intimidated the group (it's always at least two or three) enough to send them on their way, and I'll cross the fucking street if I think it's going to help me avoid an incident.

QFT. Where I used to live a guy crawled into my window bedroom intruder style (it's funny but it's also fucking awful) but that is only one tiny bit of crime. A woman a few apts over was stabbed to death. My male neighbors got mugged. It sucked.

It sucks being poor and it sucks living in an area that the city has just decided to write off and let go to hell.

People think "ooh those people don't know how to live or something" and the less people care the more the criminals act up, and the more people don't see a point in respecting others.

Now you see, I am not used to men acting like this either... like it is irrational to observe your surroundings and be aware that pretty much anyone *could* turn out to be some one who attacks you.

To be honest, this can mean women too (I was actually robbed by a woman once in a store where I was working at night) so you watch out.

Dropping the bag after close? You watch out. Man, woman, whatever you are you watch out.

It's not victim mentality, it's being fucking realistic.

The guy that worked in the camera store next to ours got stabbed two blocks from work for a pack of cigarettes and about 15 dollars.

No insurance, tens of thousands in bills, and all for nothing: yeah... you take that kind of shit seriously.

It's not stupid, it's not being "weak" or having the wrong attitude, it's fucking being a survivor in a hostile environment.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 6, 2011 1:04 PM

slothrop, if it makes you feel more comfortable to hang out with only men, then you have to do what is right for yourself.

But I thought that you were saying that the conferences becoming no-sex zones was what made you want to bail? Did I miss something?

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 6, 2011 1:14 PM

Slothrop,
Like I said, I was confused. Reading is not always strong for me.
I am, I think, fairly aware of how different my life experiences are from other people's, but it's also fair to say that I approach people who complain about some aspect of their life as if I might be able to help. Maybe that's a flaw, I don't know, but there it is. Of couse all I can do is draw on the life that I have lived so far in doing so. In general it is my hope that by responding I can at least offer support if not useful advice.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 6, 2011 1:16 PM

whenever I hear people speak so cavalierly about sexual relationships as though they were something everyone has a possibility of obtaining, it's just annoying.

To repeat: my advice was not for how to get laid. It was just an admonition to treat women as people. Whether anyone gets laid or not doing that is something I don't particularly care about, because someone getting laid is less important than half the population getting equal standing in society's eyes.

Posted by: Vin Smodile | July 6, 2011 1:23 PM

Epigenetics is what tells your eye cells not to make bone

Depending on your definition of 'epigenetics'.

see the special guest?

J.J. Walker?!!!
Dy-no-MITE!

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | July 6, 2011 1:27 PM

Walton, I liked Evolution a lot more than the critics seemed to, and not just because I find David Duchovny to be easy on the eye. The call-back to the X Files made me aspirate my Diet Coke. :)

Choice quotes:

Harry Block: There's always time for lubricant!

Harry Block: Shouldn't we call the government to help us out on this?
Ira Kane: Absolutely not! I know those people.

Harry Block: I've seen this movie, the black dude dies first. YOU snag it!

Allow me to share something with the entire class. Last night as I was grading papers, I came across two gems both entitled "Cells are Bad" and both with just one paragraph which I unfortunately committed to memory: "Cells are bad. My uncle lives in a cell. It's ten foot by twelve and he has to read the same boring, old magazine everyday. The end." Although my standards are nowhere near where they used to be I could not bring myself to put As atop those beauties.

I can't imagine wanting to have an intimate relationship with someone I didn't already like and trust.

Seconded.

Actually, I'd second pretty much all of your post @361.
-

Do we really mean to be telling him that the only way to end up in a sexual relationship is to drift into one obliquely?

No, but it sounded (to me) as if he was essentially saying, "Friendships never morph into sexual relationships; therefore, shoot for the sex right off the bat."

Anecdote: Back when dinosaurs walked the earth, and I was in college (late '70s? early '80s? don't remember the exact year), there was this guy (ultimately revealed as a slimeball in oh, so many ways) who expressed the belief that if the first date didn't end in sex, there was "something wrong with the relationship", and so there would be no second date. Of course, I know that one of those "first dates" involved slipping a little something into her drink, and she woke up in the morning with the sex already done, so it's obvious that when he said "relationship" he really didn't mean anything other than sex.

While I don't suspect Benjamin of using this same approach, this guy's "take" on the subject was
my personal intro to the fact that "relationship" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone, and that some guys are uninterested in making any emotional "investment" without the certainty of sex---not "possibility", but "certainty".

I'm assuming that what Benjamin means by "relationship" involves at least the possibility of sex, from the git-go. But I could be misunderstanding.
-

That's precisely the problem: I get no feedback.

Or possibly you're missing the feedback, not noticing or misinterpreting it. You know, like a guy who honestly, earnestly, even well-intentionedly, doesn't understand why getting a gal alone in an elevator at 4 am may alarm her. Like a white person who doesn't believe that "racial profiling" is an issue, because it hasn't been an issue for them. Like a theist of any stripe who is flabbergasted that it's possible to not believe in any god at all.
-

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 6, 2011 1:34 PM

Of course there are also certain places/circumstances where the reason to do so is an acceptable one (thinking certain meet ups, and the like not just regular clubs)

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 6, 2011 1:37 PM

Clarification of my 499: I don't mean that everyone handles it that way. I mean that those of us inclined to be into people as people still do it.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | July 6, 2011 1:43 PM

*peeks in*
Well, no advice for the lovelorn from me. No clue.
Back to the copy machine.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | July 6, 2011 1:46 PM

If I may pull things back into movies for a moment...

Did anyone else here also watch the spin-off cartoon, Extreme Ghostbusters?

THE spin-off cartoon? Ahem, I believe you're forgetting a little something called The Real Ghostbusters, which was THE spin-off, and some damn classic animated television at that (disclaimer: I have not seen it since its original airing, so it may very well be fondly-remembered crap, but I remember it having a pretty long run for a Saturday morning cartoon and sticking out in my memory more than many other shows).

I recall with clarity the first time I realized that some people really have different senses of humor.

I have an anecdote in precisely the opposite direction. I went to the movies by myself during my freshman year of college (yeah, so I still do this), and they had a trailer for American Pie. The final shot in it, following some character's line about third base being like "warm apple pie", was where Whosits gets caught by Eugene Levy with his...you've all seen it. It was probably the biggest simultaneous laugh I've ever witnessed in a theater, and it lasted well into the next trailer. Meanwhile, I was sitting there in slack-jawed disbelief. Few times in life have I ever felt so alone.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 6, 2011 1:53 PM

That's precisely what it sounds like. 'You have to build a friendship, with absolutely no sexual thoughts whatsoever, then maybe, someday, you might end up with a romantic relationship with that person (but probably not).'

That's not really what I meant, though I can see how it might have come across that way. I didn't mean to suggest that one "has" to have a long Platonic friendship with someone before making any romantic advance; that would be just as silly as asserting the opposite.

Rather, my point was simply that I don't subscribe to the idea that there's a categorical distinction between "romantic partners" and "friends". As far as I'm concerned, a romantic partner is a close, trusted, intimate friend with whom one happens to have sex. (And for me, the friendship is by far the more important part. But YMMV.)

You see, it's not about having a relationship. It's about having the option of having a relationship. It's about being able to go ask someone out and have a less than 100% chance of rejection.

See, I think the underlying assumption here is the heart of the problem. Years ago I felt much the same way - and, over time, I learned that that kind of thinking was toxic, self-esteem-destroying, and was actively preventing me from forming healthy relationships.

What I'm trying to say (and I apologize if I'm communicating poorly) is simply this: relationships aren't trophies, dating isn't a competitive sport, and potential partners aren't points on a scoreboard. You shouldn't be measuring your "worth" or "success" at life in terms of the number of romantic opportunities you get. You don't have to live up to our society's stupid and arbitrary archetype of the "Real Man", in this respect or any other. Having lots of sexual partners doesn't make someone more "successful", and being celibate, whether temporarily or permanently, doesn't make someone "a failure". Thinking of it that way is a sure-fire way to make yourself miserable, and to make your interactions with others stressful and unpleasant (for you and for them) instead of mutually enjoyable.

Unfortunately, this particular form of self-destructive and self-esteem-crushing thinking is strongly encouraged by the toxic masculinity that pervades our culture; the fact that a spontaneous romantic interaction is referred to as "scoring" or "getting laid", and the way that men who have a lot of sexual partners are lionized as "studs", for instance. It isn't good for anyone. And, as rational individuals and as a society, we should seek to move beyond it.

A trophy-relationship, between two people who just want to "get laid" in order to raise their self-esteem by fulfilling some arbitrary standard of how "Real Men" and "Hot Women" are supposed to behave, is never actually going to be healthy or emotionally fulfilling for anyone. I don't think you really want that, deep down; and I don't think it would do you (or your hypothetical partner) any good.

That's precisely the problem: I get no feedback. I can avoid the obvious fuckups, but when I discover one of the aforementioned new and unexpected fuckups, I don't even realize it. Barring the conversational equivalent of a slap in the face, I can't tell whether things are going well or not.

The way I deal with this is by asking for such feedback; for instance, it's not uncommon for me to say "Oh, sorry if that sounded weird/creepy". Ninety percent of the time, it didn't; but I suffer from social anxiety, together with a certain amount of social ineptitude, and so always tend to err on the side of caution.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 6, 2011 1:54 PM

Rey Fox,
I gave up on comedy movies. I laugh more at Jaws than any modern comedy I have managed to reach the end of in the past decade.

Posted by: Richard Austin | July 6, 2011 2:01 PM

Rey Fox:

A friend of mine and I go see a lot of movies, and I'm always on the lookout for odd independent flicks. Well, we pick one that's listed as some NYC party-gone-wrong type thing, and we go to see it.

We sit down in the theatre and notice that there are a lot of persian-types there; this is a little odd, as the area's mostly gay and Russian. But we let it slide. Then the previews start.

Apparently, some links/IDs got crossed on the website, because this was an Iranian film whose translated title was the same as the film we thought we were seeing. Still, we sat through it just to for the experience.

The movie had subtitles and was some soap-opera type thing (but, appropos, had a female lead fighting for women's rights in a limited sense). The previews, however, did not. Apparently they were hilarious. However, we were laughing not at the jokes but at our experience of being the only two people in the theatre who didn't understand them.

I mean, I wander through the world feeling a like an alien anyway, but this was just -so- "standing on the outside looking in" that you had to laugh. Afterwards, though, I did point out to my friend (who'd always asked but never really "got it") that being there, with everyone laughing but we couldn't even understand the language, is a bit what it's like for me in conversations with "normal" people. He's more forgiving/understanding of my sometimes odd behavior in social gatherings now.

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | July 6, 2011 2:13 PM

Clarification, and speaking only for myself: Benjamin, I'm not unsympathetic to your plight, but I'm at a loss for suggestions that haven't been made here before. If I think of anything that might be helpful, you'll be the second to know. (Okay, you and everyone else on Teh Thread. Details.)
-

How scary is it that I read "raison date" and immediately translated it in my head, without question or hesitation, to "raison d'être", even before I read the rest of the sentence?

:)

Exactly what I had in mind. (I like in-jokes.)
-

"Shutting off the notion of women as sexual beings is still dehumanizing."

So... viewing women as potential partners is dehumanizing... but not viewing women as potential partners is dehumanizing... WTF?

Does bear an unpleasantly-close resemblence to "damned if you do, damned if you don't", I agree. All I can say is, context matters. That and, "Social stuff is hard". And "No matter what the label says, one size does not fit all".
-

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 6, 2011 2:17 PM

Slothrop,
I can understand your decision to avoid situations where you would be unhappy. I must admit, that while I like people and find many things very engaging about interacting with them, that I likely wouldn't notice many of the things that you find distressing about mixed group interactions. I guess it's to be expected, I seek out situations that skew interactions in the opposite direction.
However, my obliviousness doesn't mean I don't give a shit, it's hard for me to see a person give up on an aspect of life that I take for granted. That sadly doesn't translate into having anything useful to add. I just hope you can find a way to deal with this.

Posted by: SC OM | July 6, 2011 3:09 PM

That Isis post is bugging me to no end. Where does she get the nerve to welcome atheist women to the feminist fold after reading one post by someone who fairly recently recognized herself as a feminist, as though many atheists haven't been feminists for decades. Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre must be spinning in their graves.

From one of the comments:

We should be attacking dogma and empiracally determinable falsehoods, regardless of their origins. Religion has elements of these, but it is not, in its totality, defined by them.

Um, yes, yes it is defined by them.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 6, 2011 3:23 PM

Another disease is wiped off the mas. That makes two.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 6, 2011 3:44 PM

The following excerpt is a bunch of stuff that most of you know already. I offer it as an appetizer, because in the full text, which is free, each of the parenthetical citations is hyperlinked to a study that I know you want to read in full.

The Perennial Debate: Nature, Nurture, or Choice? Black and White Americans' Explanations for Individual Differences; Jayaratne et al; doi 10.1037/a0014227

«First, burgeoning genetic research and the ensuing media coverage touting genetic discoveries for a wide range of human characteristics have likely influenced popular opinion about the origins of human traits, in the form of causal explanation (Brescoll & LaFrance, 2004). Causal explanations have significant consequences as they are linked to numerous attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors in the social and political domains (e.g., Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995; Weiner, 1986). For example, genetic explanations are associated with stereotyping and prejudice (Keller, 2005), environmental explanations are linked to policy decisions regarding poverty initiatives (Hughes & Tuch, 2000), and choice explanations predict anti-gay attitudes (Jayaratne et al, 2006). Second, the interrelationships among causal factors are significant because, if factors are perceived as correlated, then beliefs about one factor will affect beliefs about other, correlated factors (e.g., genetic implies non-environmental). Furthermore, because it is widely accepted among scientists that genes and the environment interact in complex ways to account for virtually all human characteristics (e.g., Moore, 2001), lay beliefs about the association between these factors have significance for scientific literacy. ...

The dissimilar causal dimensionality of genetic, environmental, and choice explanations suggests that these factors may function in distinct ways. For example, because genetic explanations imply stability, they can be associated with stigma (e.g., genetic defects; Phelan, 2005) or can serve as a rationale for the current social order (e.g., Kevles, 1985; Lerner, 1992). Genetic explanations, implying uncontrollability, can also minimize blame (Monterosso, Royzman, & Schwartz, 2005; Weiner, 1995). Choice, signifying controllability, might be favored to assign credit or blame for outcomes, and thus is used for moral emphasis (Sousa, 2006). Environmental explanations have commonly been employed to call for social change through policy, but can take on many uses, in part, depending on what environmental component is targeted (Hughes & Tuch, 2000). In sum, preference for an explanation ought to be linked to its functional meaning and so reflect cultural, personal, political, and social group values.

Lay causal beliefs may also be influenced by and affect popular discourse. For instance, emphasis on genetic contributions to certain traits in the mainstream media may increase public receptivity to genetic explanations (Brescoll & LaFrance, 2004; Nelkin & Lindee, 1995). For other traits, public discussion tends to focus on environmental explanations. For example, news reports concerning acts of violence often note the perpetrator’s upbringing, social dynamics, or proximate precipitating factors (McManus & Dorfman, 2002). For behaviors commonly framed as moral issues (e.g., sexual orientation), choice explanations are often salient in public dialogue because choice implies moral responsibility (Jayaratne et al., 2006). Finally, for some traits, multiple causal factors are frequently offered. This appears to be the case with athleticism, where coaching or parental encouragement (environment), natural talent or physical attributes (genetic), and motivation or hard work (implying choice) have all been invoked.»

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | July 6, 2011 3:53 PM

Oh, movie quotes:

I would hate to have to defend Stripes, which is silly fluff in the most charitable description, but these lines cracked me up:

"Lighten up, Francis!"

-and-

"What we have here is one heavily armed recreational vehicle!"

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 6, 2011 4:08 PM

Bill D,
I dated my wife through high school by the term as you are using it. What didn't happen is that we went on a date to find out if we were compatible, we weren't set up, we didn't exlusively associate with each other, we would do things with members of the opposite sex without each other being present, etc. It was an organic extension of our friendship being closer than those we shared with other friends, not some categorically different thing.
I think what Jadehawk* refers to as dating or dating culture in N.America is the idea that your SO is a different sphere of social interaction from the rest of your social life. I know that my parents viewed it as such and were regularly apalled at the cavalier, to them, fashion with which I approached relationships.

Posted by: fuckin' kristinc | July 6, 2011 4:17 PM

I wish to pick the Pharynguhorde brain mass, please and thank you.

Over the past couple years I've become sensitive to more and more facial sunscreen ingredients. At this point I'm avoiding avobenzone, homosalate, octocrylene, and oxybenzone (the usual "Helioplex" and "AvoTriPlex" type suspects).

I have a sensitive skin sunscreen that works but it's spf 30, and I'd like a higher spf for an upcoming trip to the beach. It doesn't need to be fancy, it just needs to be high spf and not chemically flay my face. I'm thinking some thick, white, physical-blocker-heavy baby formula, but it seems like even "hypoallergenic" baby formulas have octisalate and/or homosalate now.

Because I need to be able to return it if it burns me, something I can find at the drugstore would be best, and waterproof would be a big bonus. Any suggestions?

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | July 6, 2011 4:35 PM

Good news: "Court throws out Don't Ask, Don't Tell (July 6)," which should do the trick, finally.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | July 6, 2011 4:46 PM

On swearing:

Pre-school teacher to parent:

"There's just one thing... every day at lunch your son says, "I don't want that god-damned milk!"

Parent: "So???

If he doesn't want the god-damned milk, the hell with him!"

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 6, 2011 4:47 PM

I need the horde's help. Some one is claiming that male privilege isn't real according to some articles. I was wondering if anyone had some schalorly article they can direct me to to rebuttal that claim.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 6, 2011 5:03 PM

I walk quietly when I am alone, but that decoheres rapidly when there are observers.

Posted by: Birger Johansson | July 6, 2011 5:12 PM

"The man leading the fight against anti-girl abortion"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128195.800-the-man-leading-the-fight-against-antigirl-abortions.html
--- --- --- --- ---
A few years ago I had an epiphany, when I was out walking in the evening (summer evenings/nights here never get too dark for you to read a newspaper by the ambient light, so my circadian rythms get garbled) and noticed a fact:
While there were quite a few girls out jogging or walking at that time of evening, every one of them was accompanied by a dog!

Dog ownership is common, but the venn diagram for non-dog owning women out in the evening was empty.
Until then, I had never thought about what it would mean to be smaller than 50% of the population, and the fears and dangers it would generate. Myself I am a quite tall guy, so if some punk gave me aggro I could just lean over him to intimidate him (I have never actually had to do that, size helps).
It is like suddenly finding an unknown continent in your own back yard... an everyday environment that becomes scary during evening!

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 6, 2011 5:27 PM

Is the person really claiming that gender/sex bias doesn't exist?

Yes.

Luckily I'm being helped out but the inablity to see the fact is astoundingly high in the thread I'm on.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | July 6, 2011 5:33 PM

*High-fives Gyeong Hwa Pak! *

If UPS is missing you, make sure they have the right phone number. They may call first.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 6, 2011 5:48 PM

*High-fives Gyeong Hwa Pak! *

Thanks. Goodness this elevator topic is being pain in the ass. All the atheists dudes are suddently like "OMGZ I'M NOT A RAPIST! I'M A NICE GUY..."

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 6, 2011 5:59 PM

SG, I had posted something on the work place privileges. I have no idea how the guy can claim that male privilege doesn't exist.

Posted by: llewelly | July 6, 2011 6:16 PM

Benjamin "Brother, Can You Spare a Few Thousand Dimes" Geiger Author Profile Page | July 6, 2011 12:13 PM:

It's official: Even computers have more social aptitude than I do.

Color me skeptical. The article does not say how they ascertained the accuracy of the facial expression tech. Since the humans scored only 54% correct, much lower than on other tests of human accuracy of reading facial expressions that I have read about, I am suspicious of their test.

Furthermore - all previous photo or camera recognition technologies have had a few rounds of severe to disabling issues with lighting, angle of view, minor obscuration (sunglasses, for example, often confuse people as to what the cheek muscles, eyes, and eyebrows are doing), and so forth. It would be surprising if somehow this technology did not require some further development to deal with such issues.

Come back in 5 years. Or maybe 15.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | July 6, 2011 6:31 PM

Also, all cats are dead.

Posted by: David Marjanović | July 6, 2011 6:33 PM

*pounce* Jadehawk, have you read the e-mail I sent you on June 3rd? If you haven't, please read it – perhaps in keeping with the current topic, there's nothing potentially embarrassing, saddening or whatever in it. :-)

she was supposed to dress up when a guy invites her to a fun activity,

*headdesk*

and that he is showing sexual/romantic interest by inviting her to pretty much anything at all

Over here, people grow out of that mindset around the time they... become capable of having sexual/romantic interest in the first place.

(Before that age, real or fictitious events of that kind are used to ridicule people.)

being on that paleontological dig with David reminded me again: college-aged people were perfectly capable of sleeping, changing etc. in mixed-gender rooms, and using baths that didn't lock, without there being even a whiff of harassment (and poland isn't precisely the most liberal or progressive of all societies) or awkwardness about such mixed-gender rooms.

Well, changing... unsurprisingly, nobody (male or female) changed their underwear in front of my eyes; you specifically sent all the guys out every time you wanted to change and were in the dorm; I usually changed in the dorm when other people were in there, but in the dark, with my back to everyone, and with the help of a pyjama shirt that was longer than some minidresses...

All the rest is true, however. Even though it took a day or three till people got into the habit of knocking instead of simply assuming the bathroom must be empty because they were able to rip the door open.

...and even though there were few opportunities for harrassment that wouldn't have required lots of people to be complicit (as in mobbing an outsider or something – when there wasn't really such a thing as an outsider): there were always lots of people close by.

BTW, Poland is progressing at least in one respect: three years earlier, I observed that half of the participants in the dig went to church on Sunday, while the other half slept in. I think the ratio decreased further in the next years. :-)

On the other hand, we were delivered complaints by tourists (probably the nuns that occasionally showed up) that some participants of the female persuasion weren't wearing enough. Standing around in shorts and a bikini top while swinging a rock hammer isn't universally accepted in Poland. :-D

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 6, 2011 6:37 PM

Well, changing... unsurprisingly, nobody (male or female) changed their underwear in front of my eyes; you specifically sent all the guys out every time you wanted to change and were in the dorm;

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | July 6, 2011 6:42 PM

Jadehawk:

<shrug> The "American" situations you describe are unfamiliar to me, in my personal experience, and the "non-American" versions seem remarkably more familiar. FWIW, my daughter and her high school friends had mixed-gender sleepovers all the time, and when she was in plays, everybody changed clothes together in a single dressing room (actually a classroom; there was no proper dressing room at her school's theatre/auditorium). I guess I've just been lucky: I know the sort of prissy, sex-phobic provincialism you describe exists; I just haven't encountered much of it in my own life.

That said, I was looking back over the thread, and I noticed this comment that I'd missed previously:

I *do* treat women as people. In fact, I usually treat women as people to the exclusion of considering them potential partners.

Without responding to Benjamin in particular ('cuz others already have), I'll note that something very (sadly) true about our culture is embedded in that utterance: Hardwired in our cultural heritage is the notion that sex is inherently depraved and dehumanizing.

I don't mean that many of us consciously believe that as individuals (probably hardly any Horde regulars do), but in our cultural backstory, and thus stealthily whispering in all our ears, is a Puritan minister, fresh off the boat in Massachusetts Bay, telling us that "you can treat someone as a person or you can have sex with them, but you canna' do both!"

Of course, all of so-called Christendom shares the concept of original sin... but I think the fact that the U.S. was founded specifically by Puritan radicals amounted to distilling the concept of the inherent depravity of the flesh to very high proof indeed! We've been culturally fucked ever since.

So... yeah, Jadehawk... why was I arguing with you, again? <RuefulHeadscratch>

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 6, 2011 6:47 PM

"Awake and Arise America"...

There's a title of a villain speech if I ever heard one.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 6, 2011 6:51 PM

In any event, I would see that bizarre act of asking for a date as being part of the socially sanctioned relationships. Just talking as one person to another isn't part of the script, but asking to meet for a date is. Heaven forbid you should know anything about a person before you are dating.

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | July 6, 2011 6:52 PM

Three fucking days without internet access!!!
One (or two) little lightening strike and the whole satellite system goes to shit.
What did I miss?
---
Saw four baby muskoxen this AM!

Posted by: Bill Door | July 6, 2011 7:00 PM

fuckin' kristinc, #527
Try Blue Lizard Sensitive sunscreen. Uses Zinc and titanium dioxide as the sunscreen. It also actually stays on your skin.
The label says SPF 30+ because that's the highest the Australian government will allow anyone to claim.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 6, 2011 7:03 PM

I hate that idea. Fuck is a good word.

Posted by: Hypatia's Girl | July 6, 2011 7:05 PM

bursts into Thread like the KoolAid thing:

I . . . I really have to say this to someone other than my roommate, who has heard it about 15,000 times.

I've lurked through the elevator threads, and followed some of the other commentaries on it, and I haven't seen this point brought up too often, if at all. And I wouldn't be so itchy about it if it did not strike me as the absolutely *rudest* (filled with all sorts of moral disgust) Nice Guy (TM) way of dismissing women as people.

And there was a comment I wanted to reference in particular, but fuck if I can't find it. It went something along the lines of 'I worry about having more women at atheist/skeptic-things because then it'll just be a big dating scene." Which is, like, a totally valid reason for worrying about letting girls into the boys club. Just like we ought to really have a think through how we can give men other ways of telling women they want to mate if we don't let them talk to strangers.

Men - you do *not* have a right to my attention. I am not obligated to witness any or every thought that runs through your mind, simply because it is something you thought about me.

If you feel that strange women are your only dating hope - join groups that are for dating strangers. On the internet, at bars. Do not talk to strange women on the street, at the bus stop, in the coffee shop, at the grocery store. It doesn't matter if you have a more difficult that usual time interpreting social situations, find it more difficult to meet potential partners, that does not change the fact that you have no right against her. You have no standing to demand her attention. She is not obligated to listen to you, hear you, acknowledge you.

Her right to walk/act/live/conduct her affairs in peace - let alone to not be creeped out, threatened, annoyed or distracted - fucking trumps your need to tell strangers what you think.

Err on the side of NOT TALKING TO STRANGERS if you feel confused. You don't fucking wander up to strange men and tell them you think they look like great friend material - show women the fucking same respect.

And yes, loneliness sucks, and our culture really trumpets the sense of only being human if you're in a relationship and how the hell to people meet each other any way. Yes. True fact story. You may wind up telling fewer women you want to sex them if you limit telling others of your desire only in situations that are designed to gather together people looking to give and receive romantic or sexual attention. But you will at least be treating women with the barest minimum of respect. And if we are going to live in a pluralistic world, where women are able to appear in public without being assumed public-women, keeping your opinions about strangers to yourself is a pretty nice place to start.

***

In a gentler voice - I firmly believe that I love the Dune movie, despite the fact that I'm wretchedly bored during all scenes that don't have Sting. But then I'm a big Peter Greenaway fan. So - a round of hooray for practically unwatchable films?

/aggressive thread intrusion

Posted by: Liriodendron, Latin macaronique sous le soleil | July 6, 2011 7:12 PM

Benjamin, may I add to the chorus of voices asking that you get help? From a professional?
I keep wanting to write more on this (I actually composed a teel deer on my walk home, and decided that it 1. wasn't helpful l 2. was too long), but instead I will say that I feel for you, and hope it gets better.

@Jadehawk: iiiinteresting. Without the concrete examples, I was all like "those crazy Europeans always saying 'Merkins are different", but with your examples in #554 about gender segregation, I was like "aha". Hmmm. I think it's not quite as bad as you're saying: I'm younger than Bill Dauphin, and "dating" in high school (for m'self and everyone I knew) was still hanging out in groups, punctuated with a "date" or two. When we reached college age, "dinner and a movie" became a thing of the past (because dinner and a movie is sometimes the easiest way to hold hands with your SO while underage [e.g. my parents wouldn't let me have sex until I went to college, and they're pretty liberal, mostly agnostic]).

I guess I've never looked at the dinner date as that awful (or, not quite like an interview), because from one perspective, you're saying "I think you might be interesting enough to talk to one-on-one for an hour or two at least, and perhaps you also consider me interesting enough to talk to". But the Hollywood romantic comedy (in general and their portrayal of dating) has frequently been abhorrent to me, so maybe this view doesn't make sense.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 6, 2011 7:16 PM

Oh great now now he's claiming white males are just as underprivilege as any other group.

Headdesk

Well since we are talking about dating:
It's freaking hard to find other gay people to socialize with and eventually date without going to a bar or club.

Posted by: The Sailor | July 6, 2011 7:20 PM

Dhorvath, The Artistocrats! cracked me up more than any movie I've seen in a long time. My ex-GF and I saw it together in a sparsley attended Uni Fine Arts showing room.
Seating maybe 150 max, with maybe 30 ppl present, spread out around the theater. Everyone seemed to find it LOL funny, and I was in the aisle holding my sides.
That said; comedy is definitely in the eye of the beholder.
The whole joke the movie was around is NOT my type of humor, and yet seeing how these different comics worked the punchline was instructive and hilarious. Maybe it was my GF, we had a similar sense of humor, (even tho she hated puns).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Benjamin,
I've seen (read) you in these moods before. I think you're viewing most of the responses thru a mood filter. Maybe a quick diet & exercise break would help.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On a completely different subject: I had a dream last night where my cell phone rang outside of the dream, it was even my ringtone, and I woke up to answer the phone ... which of course had not rung.
My mind, it's a terrible waste to ring. (True story. (the pun was just batter on the cake.))
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's something simple for the Horde, and especially new readers/de-lurkers: Just because some commenter comes down on you, hard, does not mean your feelings and writings aren't valid.

No one checks their baggage at the door; it is a shark tank, but it's virtual sharks; your seat cushion is not only NOT A FLOTATION DEVICE, it might even be a porcupine, and; the net's a rough place wear a cup, or an oxygen mask. Just remember to smother the child next to you first.

Thank you for flying PZ Air, we are where you want to be, you just don't know it yet.
++++++++++++++++++
Duke: "You say our names, we're going to have to kill all these people, Archie." - Repo Man

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 6, 2011 7:23 PM

Kristinc,
I think where I get confused is on people going out to dinner to get to know one another. If I am going to suggest that I spend several hours with another person and nothing to drive the interaction save our ability to relate, I should already know that we can spend hours comfortably together. It has already happened and going for dinner/coffee/hike/whatever is just seeking to continue it in another venue.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 6, 2011 7:27 PM

What hell? Ban him. He is not owed any little slice of anyone's time.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 6, 2011 7:29 PM

oh, and apparently Paul's now, too.

anyway, he's only started posting after I stopped (having a creativity problem), so it's not like he's derailing active threads much.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 6, 2011 7:33 PM

In case you were wondering, here's the thread in question.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 6, 2011 7:36 PM

Algernon,

Because the reality is that I have only so much time in my life, and I can't waste it giving every guy who wants a piece of ass even one more minute of that precious life of mine.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 6, 2011 7:41 PM

AJ Milne,
So your parent avoided a topic and you don't quite know how you internalized it as being taboo?

Posted by: Liriodendron, Latin macaronique sous le soleil | July 6, 2011 7:44 PM

Dhorvath, #575: You make a good point. I admit to not having been on "date" dates in years (and even when I did, it was while comfortably ensconced in a relationship, so without the whole are-you-interesting-or-not drama).

@Algernon: Do you go to things with male friends? All in all, it seems like a reasonable way to go about life.

Ok, SO wants to watch movie on Netflix. Shutting up now.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 6, 2011 7:46 PM

Okay, that was a little unfair. See, my parents had sex and were fairly open about it. We had rules about when we were allowed to come home on Friday nights and jokes were often ribald in nature. Sex was just another of life's adult pleasures for me growing up, something that I saw positive effects from on a regular basis between two loving adults. So sorry for deriding your childhood, I clearly don't understand it.

Posted by: Squigit | July 6, 2011 7:56 PM

was so surprised when I realized that dinner + movie was actually a date that people go on [as a first date]. There's just no good way to do it - Sitting awkwardly in a dark movie theater so that you can talk about it at dinner - awful. Having dinner and then awkwardly sitting in a place you're not supposed to talk - awful.

Ugh, I agree completely. Honestly, I'd much rather have a conversation over coffee or something if you'd like "schedule" it into your life (hey, I'm super busy, too...err, not really...but someday I will be!), so I understand.

What I hate most, though, is when I'm talking to a man and he automatically assumes that I'm interested romantically. What the hell? Can't I just talk to you? Seriously. It's happened several times.

Or, if he knows I'm not interested romantically and feels the same way (or doesn't) but we continue talking, everyone else assumes that we are interested romantically. WTF?
My husband doesn't know anything about my field and actually walks away when I start talking about it so it's just fucking nice to talk to someone who can challenge me intellectually and understands what I'm talking about; since it's a very male dominated field, quite often, it's men I'm talking to, so get over it.

Okay, I think I'm done ranting now.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | July 6, 2011 7:57 PM

I like the line, "If you're weren't so picky you might have a man in your life," or, more bluntly, "No wonder you live alone."

This is the ultimate putdown, (or intended putdown since it really doesn't work on me), from a man who finds his sex-whenever-I-want-it demand not met with a willing smile. It's sort of like saying, "Why can't you just be submissive? I'm sure we'd both be happy then."

The thing is, living alone is not a punishment. And it's far better than preparing yourself to be less than you really are every day of every damned year.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 6, 2011 8:04 PM

Quick question: I routinely have lunch with a man who is not my husband. Is this considered weird or wrong in the US?

I have to agree that the European style sounds more familiar to me. I have certainly changed clothes in mixed-sex dorms (choir camps, mostly) or mixed-sex theatre backstage change-rooms. Zero drama. If removing underwear, I'd just ask any guys present to turn their backs for a minute.

I suspect this might be related to the US's religiosity.

Posted by: fuckin' kristinc | July 6, 2011 8:10 PM

Dhorvath @575, I think you're replying to someone else ;)

Thanks for the sunscreen suggestions. I didn't know that about Australian sunscreens so I was looking at the Blue Lizard lineup thinking "some of this stuff looks good, but it all tops out at 30spf!" Also, I just read that the difference between 30 and 50 spf is minimal. So if the Neutrogena doesn't work out, I may go for the Blue Lizard or just stick to my current stuff (Eucerin) and wear a hat. I'm always happy to hear more suggestions tho.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 6, 2011 8:26 PM

I routinely have lunch with a man who is not my husband. Is this considered weird or wrong in the US?

Posted by: Bill Door | July 6, 2011 8:27 PM

@fuckin' kristinc

Another good brand, supposedly, is Badger.
Be warned that both Badger and Blue Lizard are expensive as hell. But I'm a ginger who lives in California, so I need to get the good shit.

Posted by: The Sailor | July 6, 2011 8:32 PM

Lynna, one of my sayings is "I not only live alone, but if you saw my apartment you'd understand why."

This != a pick up line;-)
++++++++++++++++
Cath, IME, spending time with friends' wives gets tongues to wagging. But only shallow people with nothing better to do.
++++++++++++++++
The band and I once had to share a kitchen as a dressing room. It was a very cold night and the lead singer asked me to turn around in mid underwear drop.

We were a band, I complied and *shrinkage*, I wasn't even offended when the BG singers pointed and laughed. (I did *blush*)

We'd all known each other a couple of years by then, things were fairly sorted out friends/lovers by then, not to mention skinny dipping and other non-sexual group activities.

We used to tease & point out to each other about admirers in the house. Unless something was serious, then we were all supportive.

We all fought, but nobody outside of the band fucks with the band.

So my version of American dating is not the experience of most folks. At 50+ I'm just now starting to learn that it sucks.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 6, 2011 8:43 PM

Nerd, not a mixed group, and not a work group. Just 2 people of opposite sexes having lunch together. I'm wondering if that one-on-one thing seems odd in the US, or parts of it.

In reality, it is more often a mixed group than just the two of us. It hadn't occurred to me to wonder if mixed groups were seen as OK; I'd just assumed they were. But now you have me wondering - mixed groups, not co-workers, and not couples, with most of us having a partner or spouse who isn't there. Perfectly ordinary, right?