Comments on: Lessons for Girls #16: Romance is for your pleasure and enjoyment http://www.historiann.com/2009/12/29/lessons-for-girls-16-romance-is-for-your-pleasure-and-enjoyment/ History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:03:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 By: Lessons for Girls 16: Romance is for Fun. And: Hold On To Your Computer, House, and Car. « Professor Zero http://www.historiann.com/2009/12/29/lessons-for-girls-16-romance-is-for-your-pleasure-and-enjoyment/comment-page-1/#comment-522864 Sat, 02 Jan 2010 20:14:26 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=8894#comment-522864 [...] is for Fun. And: Hold On To Your Computer, House, and Car. Jump to Comments Now I am in a post at Historiann’s, which is an honor. Historiann’s title for my post, part of her feminist series Lessons for [...]

]]>
By: Rich http://www.historiann.com/2009/12/29/lessons-for-girls-16-romance-is-for-your-pleasure-and-enjoyment/comment-page-1/#comment-521570 Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:53:19 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=8894#comment-521570 “your initial comment really rubbed me the wrong way, obviously”

Well, I certainly do hope that my “talking to” instead of “talking with” was just a lapse of tiredness and not a subliminal message; same with my use of “that” describing people, in lieu of having to commit to who vs. whom. But I guess that’s part of my general point that I’ve never had to be particularly wary of my dates (like you have to be even of random males posting here) and have a hard time seeing why the more formalized version of the process is greeted with such loathing.

Two people who have full access to every story they possess without repetition, every bit of a combined 50-100 years of personal experience, who are well rehearsed (and even have remnants of recent date’s experiences to summon from, “I actually know someone who lives in a fancy barn year round and takes care of absent rich people’s horses”), should get along famously for a few hours! A few weeks even. Where you go from there should be the tricky part.

Maybe a bad date is, in fact, when such a course isn’t obvious — but you wouldn’t know that from the disaster stories we’re fed. Hell, now we have a sex industry colonizing the Left and telling us a “bad date” is when a prostitute is held at knife point or worse!

“Those meetings *are* described in a mystifying way in this thread”

I find that greatly reassuring. I’m also alarmed that I didn’t quite figure that out.

]]>
By: Lessons for Girls 16: Romance is for Fun. And: Hold On To Your Computer, House, and Car. « Professor Zero http://www.historiann.com/2009/12/29/lessons-for-girls-16-romance-is-for-your-pleasure-and-enjoyment/comment-page-1/#comment-521310 Thu, 31 Dec 2009 18:33:10 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=8894#comment-521310 [...] is for Fun. And: Hold On To Your Computer, House, and Car. Jump to Comments Now I am in a post at Historiann’s, which does me honor and is an excellent way to end the year. It is part of her feminist series [...]

]]>
By: squadratomagico http://www.historiann.com/2009/12/29/lessons-for-girls-16-romance-is-for-your-pleasure-and-enjoyment/comment-page-1/#comment-521298 Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:54:20 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=8894#comment-521298 Rich, thanks for being so gracious in response to my snark. Perhaps I misjudged you: your initial comment really rubbed me the wrong way, obviously, but your comment just above was generous and friendly. So, thanks for giving me another view on you.

]]>
By: Rich http://www.historiann.com/2009/12/29/lessons-for-girls-16-romance-is-for-your-pleasure-and-enjoyment/comment-page-1/#comment-521280 Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:25:23 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=8894#comment-521280 “But your self-presentation in the above comment makes it no surprise to me that you have a hard time getting second dates”

I never said anything about whether or not further dates occurred! I’m not sure it’s relevant to the point I was making. I always appreciate a good head shrinking though. :)

]]>
By: Rich http://www.historiann.com/2009/12/29/lessons-for-girls-16-romance-is-for-your-pleasure-and-enjoyment/comment-page-1/#comment-521279 Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:25:23 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=8894#comment-521279 “But your self-presentation in the above comment makes it no surprise to me that you have a hard time getting second dates”

I never said anything about whether or not further dates occurred! I’m not sure it’s relevant to the point I was making. I always appreciate a good head shrinking though. :)

]]>
By: squadratomagico http://www.historiann.com/2009/12/29/lessons-for-girls-16-romance-is-for-your-pleasure-and-enjoyment/comment-page-1/#comment-521260 Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:15:00 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=8894#comment-521260 Rich, here’s what I’m hearing from you:

-”I can have a great time talking for three hours straight to absolutely anyone” — e.g., I don’t really care what my date is like as an individual. All women are interchangeable as long as I can talk about myself for three hours. Listening to them? Huh?

-”Women ‘manage’ conversation too much.” — e.g. they can’t get a word in edgewise as you converse in your unrestrained manner. “Managing” conversation simply means being considerate of your conversation partner by trying to gauge whether they are interested in hearing every last thought that occurs to you. Your dates may be holding back because they are hoping not to encourage you to go one for another hour, as well.

-”I’m ill-equipped to judge whether a date went well and whether she would be interested in seeing me again.” e.g., you had a great time talking in a “non-managed” way about god knows what for three hours. Her? not so much.

Perhaps you are not the way you sound. But your self-presentation in the above comment makes it no surprise to me that you have a hard time getting second dates.

]]>
By: Professor Zero http://www.historiann.com/2009/12/29/lessons-for-girls-16-romance-is-for-your-pleasure-and-enjoyment/comment-page-1/#comment-521255 Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:53:19 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=8894#comment-521255 Oh good — the online era has bypassed me. How I meet men: at places and activities I would go to anyway. This works best if you’re in an area where there are a fair number of people who would be of interest to you, of course. Still.

Chemistry as way of whitewashing fetishes, I see that, but I’m only attracted to the people I am, and I have never had good results from trying to “work on” creating chemistry. I think that’s another one of those myths propagated by women’s magazines — with enough effort, we could talk ourselves into sleeping with more men, attractive or not.

Women are good hostesses and know how to talk. If they’re dating from internet sites, they’re also ready to talk. If they meet someone articulate and smart like Rich they’ll talk even if they’re not ultimately attracted. They might also have met some dud yesterday and be relieved to just talk to a human being.

I agree strongly with the following, although I will comment below:

“Truthfully, the way these meetings are being described here mystifies me. My impression, and I’m only relating my impression of the conversation here, is that they are being presented as if they are somehow more benign than dating. As if they’re these freeform things somehow less influenced by environment — or patriarchy for that matter — when who gets to share what time and what space is such a carefully regulated thing to begin with. Since the word dating presents its audience with the idea of taxonomy, of course it feels more regimented.”

Those meetings *are* described in a mystifying way in this thread. Everyone is describing some form of dating. They’re not describing super formal prom rituals, or any kind of blind date including those resulting from ads. But it is simply not true that they didn’t size each other up, get to know each other, and so on, before becoming a committed couple. I know a lot of people who claim it was just oh so natural, but I say that just means they were well suited and it was comfortable and went well.

]]>
By: Rich http://www.historiann.com/2009/12/29/lessons-for-girls-16-romance-is-for-your-pleasure-and-enjoyment/comment-page-1/#comment-521224 Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:49:21 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=8894#comment-521224 I’ve never had any experience with these more “natural” alternatives to dating; these pairings that just emerge organically out of shared time and space. Girl meets boy. They start doing it. They live happily until they stop and move on. Truthfully, the way these meetings are being described here mystifies me.

My impression, and I’m only relating my impression of the conversation here, is that they are being presented as if they are somehow more benign than dating. As if they’re these freeform things somehow less influenced by environment — or patriarchy for that matter — when who gets to share what time and what space is such a carefully regulated thing to begin with. Since the word dating presents its audience with the idea of taxonomy, of course it feels more regimented.

My real introduction to heterostuff began when I started random coffee dating women from internet sites when I was in my mid 20s: what surprised me was how much I’d been taught culturally about what constitutes a bad date, that I had no idea what a particularly good one was. Perhaps I’m just fairly well adjusted for a male, or that most women are overly instructed in the art of managing conversation (often to their own detriment), but I found that I could have a great time talking to absolutely anyone for upwards of three hours in a coffee shop.

I’m not so much a believer in chemistry, which is often just a polite way of whitewashing fetishes, I believe, and have learned to distrust instant attractions, but I found that I was ill equipped to judge how a date went and whether someone would be interested in meeting again. We don’t receive training in that.

“I’ve never used an online service, perhaps I should”

That’s so 2000. It’s too late. They’re in decline. “Everyone” is just using facebook(rich)/myspace(poor) for that sort of thing now. Evidently, some perfectly reasonable women I know in NYC use Craigslist to meet men, although none that I know where I live (middle of nowhere) would ever consider that (and all the local listings by women are written by men in Nigeria).

]]>
By: Professor Zero http://www.historiann.com/2009/12/29/lessons-for-girls-16-romance-is-for-your-pleasure-and-enjoyment/comment-page-1/#comment-520835 Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:49:41 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=8894#comment-520835 I don’t like the dating concept and I’m old enough to remember the days when one didn’t do it — one just met men and lived with them. That works if you’re already both in the same sort of life and relatively unencumbered, so you already know you have certain things in common, and there are certain problems (like kids and exes and deep neuroses) that are less likely to come up.

After 30, and especially if you’re not living in your home culture, you really want to get to know the person a bit so that you can even tell whether you’re interested in “pairing off.”

*

I am now trying to figure out the differences among relationship statuses and definitions, and I don’t understand them.

spouse (I get it)
longtime companion (I get it)
established lover of some kind(I get it)
person you’re seeing, who might become one of the above (I get it)
friend with whom at some point, as one of the things you did, you’ve had sex (I get it)
one night stand (I get it)

then there are:
“friend with benefits” (I don’t get it, is it one of the above? it seems like “person who lets you use them for sex”)
fuck buddy (I don’t get it either, it also seems exploitative in some way)

…all the people who try to get me into the last two statuses seem to be interested in using these statuses because are LESS than platonic friend status, whereas those on the first list (except one night stand, that could qualify as anything) seem to think you also get the kind of mutuality and respect a platonic friend would.

I know I am missing some piece of understanding and I don’t know what it is.

*

I’ve never used an online service, perhaps I should, but it would definitely require interviewing people; so would any type of ad.

]]>