h a l f b a k e r y"It would work, if you can find alternatives to each of the steps involved in this process."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
A codification of the language and behaviour of people seeking casual sex.
While most of the time it's already obvious enough, sometimes you'd like to be 100% (give or take a small error term) sure someone is just trying to talk you into shagging them. With this handy pocket-sized reference book,
you can easily determine exactly what it is the creepy looking guy espousing radical political views while standing just a little too close to you actually wants.
What differentiates this book from existing "How to pick up women with low self-esteem" books is that the phrasebook would also offer the other party a selection of phrases with which to guide the conversation, whether to decline, (viciously or otherwise) acquiesce, (either immediately, or at a later date) or simply make it clear both (or all, for the more experimentally minded) parties know what's going on.
While this sort of thing may seem to degrade and cheapen the experience for all concerned, I'm confident that's not what they're concerned about; and while there would certainly be cases of mistaken intent, there's always a point at which people start actually saying what they mean - it's not too easy to lie convincingly to someone who has just removed your pants.
The intended effect is to facilitate negotiations for casual sex. I don't really want to see things degrade to the utilitarian "Hi, you have lovely hair, would you like to sleep with me?" level, but I think the openness and honesty resulting from this book would benefit everyone.
Even for non-participants, the ludicrous things some people will say would make for some fun reading.
Serial Monogamay in /Homarus americanus/
http://www.crewdog....ticles/sermon1.html
Move in, molt, mate, move out. [jutta, Jul 22 2001, last modified Jan 16 2005]
637 Of the Greatest Pickup Lines
http://pub10.ezboar...e?topicID=198.topic
Maybe Not [thumbwax, Jul 22 2001, last modified Oct 04 2004]
(?) For chatting up [lewisgirl]...
http://www.bbc.co.u...ther/shipping.shtml
[angel, Jul 22 2001, last modified Oct 04 2004]
related idea
http://www.halfbake...ogrammable_20snooze
What [angel]'s referring to - me and the shipping forecast. [lewisgirl, Jul 22 2001, last modified Oct 04 2004]
[link]
|
| |
This would sell and make for a funny read. |
|
| |
However, the ambiguity you are trying to eliminate is an important feature of the system. It allows you to find out what the answer would be without revealing that you're asking. If you don't have to admit that you're asking, the other doesn't have to feel guilty about declining, and your admitted desire can't be used against you. |
|
| |
Nevertheless, even though strict codification wouldn't work, the book could still pretend it did; there's always going to be enough people who simply don't know the code to preserve the desirable ambiguity. |
|
| |
Is there an assumption here that men are the only ones that stand at bars and fish for casual sex? |
|
| |
PeterSealy: I've never used those lines, and I don't have a 100% success rate. Well, actually in bars I do. Anyway, I think you're missing the suggestion that [lobster], if female, may be making. Women use far more devious casual-sex-requirement-lines. The kind that start "My friend says I should come and talk to you, but..." (I used that one once) and "ooops, terribly sorry, I appear to have trodden on your foot."
I think women have got a lot more aware, and a lot more outgoing (some might say 'loose') since the Seventies, and therefore "Do you come here often?", clearly a chat-up-line then, is now usually acknowledged to be a simple question. The nuances of whether it should be seen as the beginning of a chat-up-sequence (there's no such thing as a single line any more) are what this phrasebook would best address. I think this would be a far better book for men to use in deciphering women's advances than for them to use in better targetting their own.
incidentally, I thought lobsters only ever got one partner? True love, in the crustacean world| — | lewisgirl,
Jul 22 2001, last modified Jul 26 2001 |
|
|
| |
Nah, they're serially monogamous. See link.
(Nothing personal, [lobster].) |
|
| |
//The male then approaches, and helps her to roll over. The pair fan their pleopods against one another just before the male intromits. Copulation lasts a few seconds, after which the female tail flips out from under the male. The female remains in the male's shelter for one to several more days, then leaves, never to return.//
Question is, did he make her breakfast? |
|
| |
No, I think he lets her live. <rimshot!> |
|
| |
Surely the best casual-sex-chat-up-line is 'Fancy a shag?'. If the answer's yes, both parties have what they wanted; if it's no, you may get a slap, but at least you've not wasted any time. |
|
| |
I don't know if 'rimshot' is the appropriate term or not here, 'Chase
For men, - when behaving 'As If' they are 'philosophizers' with the prey - I mean - potential Partner(ette), one thing I heard not too long ago was interjecting a few key words "The sky above me" and "... below me" - sounds like - "This guy above me" and "blow me" to the unwary subliminal receptionist. |
|
| |
oi oi, angel. I'm not available.
and re: [thumbwax]s link, you know the game when you're going out with your friends and you each write down a line and put them together in a hat and take out a random one, and you have to use it? Well, I wrote #182, and got back #2. It was all meant to be a joke but darn it, he called my bluff. //The male remains in the female's shelter for one hour, then leaves, never to return.// Thankfully. |
|
| |
<grins at thumbwax> Pun unintentional, but welcome. |
|
| |
Oh, I'd buy the phrasebook. I'd use it as a required text in classes of adults learning English as a second language. |
|
| |
Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to get lucky ... |
|
| |
First, to clear up some confusion: I'm male, single, and approaching this from the perspective of an amused onlooker. |
|
| |
jutta: I don't believe there's much ambiguity left, except perhaps in the minds of people heavily in denial about it. From what I've seen, there isn't much guilt associated with declining - "Excuse me. Since my friend here doesn't seem to have the courage to do it, I'll have to. Is it worth his time coming over here to talk to you?" "No, not at all." Everyone knows, but not everyone knows that everyone knows, it seems. |
|
| |
Mephista: My objection to commercial sex isn't based on morality, it's more that it represents the ultimate victory of capitalism over the needs of the people. Free sex is (in theory) in plentiful supply - most of us are constantly surrounded by sexually active members of the appropriate gender - yet so much demand goes unfulfilled that people are forced to pay for it. Sex is an interesting application of economics, as enough demand directly creates its own supply, given, shall we say, perfect market knowledge. This book is aimed at improving people's 'market knowledge' - their capability for obtaining sex - thereby satisfying more demand, but without taking all the fun out of it. |
|
| |
angel: I quite agree, but I don't think most people would feel comfortable approaching complete strangers and flatly propositioning them. I wouldn't.
At least, not without some assistance.. |
|
| |
I was reminded last night about a text message I sent to a chap last October. We'd been out drinking with mutual friends and spent the evening flirting outrageously. A week later, he received this from me at lunchtime: "why in the name of casual sex have you not called me yet?".
A matter of hours later, ... |
|
| |
Can you write out that bit about the lobsters again, lewisgirl? That was horny!
(Yes, I know I'm sad, but what can you do?) |
|
| |
The lobsters are in [jutta]'s link, DrBob.
I think I'm bringing too much of my personal life into this. By the way, I tried radio4 last night, for the soporific value, and it worked. Then of course I had it waking me up this morning, and that Bellieni chap who's been doing all the eye-witness reports about the Tamil Tiger thing at the airport was just too much like Paul-from-Big-Brother for words! |
|
| |
Wow! I love the "why in the name of casual sex . . . " line, lewisgirl. That is simple and, I'm certain, effective. |
|
| |
You're right: simple, effective, and memorable. He went back to his fiancée a month later. But like we said, this is about casual sex. |
|
| |
Oh come on Sealy, it's not so blatant. I'd be tempted by a guy sending such a piece of e-mail. |
|
| |
Hey that one book "How to pick up women with low self-esteem" would be pretty handy. I'd be like, "Hey baby, I think you're a great person. You've got a great personality and you're a great person to be with. So..shall we...screw?" |
|
| |
I actually think the idea is good. The uses of such a book can go beyond merely the bar scene. It can be applied to any social situation in which sex can come up (no pun intended). Personally, I can't tell when a guy is trying to pick me up, so the idea of such a book is very appealing. I don't go for the casual sex scene, but its still good to know when you're being hit-on. |
|
| |
in the true spirit of loserdom I am loading the 637 lines into my Palm Pilot. I think I can approach a desirable woman and beam one of them to her while looking in the opposite direction . . . |
|
| |
Are you going to check for a PalmOS device receiving, [daruma], or are you trying for the triple axel of loserdom? |
|
| |
Actually, if you look nearly but not quite at her & blush nicely, it might be charming. Depending on the line. |
|
| |
hmm . . . do you mean there are women out there who do not carry Palm Pilots? |
|
| |
This grows ever more daunting. |
|
| |
About that list of (infinitely seedy) chat-up
lines: check out number 56. |
|
| |
The trouble with //openness and honesty// is that they would interfere with the power games and status games which surround sex. Having this book in your possession would send out the signal 'I am willing to admit my helplessness', and that might get you some pity sex, but it would have nothing to do with the content of the book. |
|
| |
Please stop the mooing in the bed room. |
|
| |