Getting meta with it.
Hey y’all. I hate being meta, but I wanted to say some things.
I am fine with being critiqued. Any good point you have, I want to hear. I don’t need gratuitous meanness, but if it is funny that’s probably fine too. I have ways that I am touchy and can get hurt, but a hard-thinking conversation isn’t one of them. I’m pretty secure, so I’m willing to entertain negative thoughts about me. If they just don’t ring true, I move on. If they do, I’ll sit with them for a while and ask people who really know me to evaluate them. A reasonable tone will help make your point.
I’ve gotten a couple emails recently saying that you’re coming through Sac and wonder if we could meet. I love that. I started this blog to meet real people; that’s the point. Don’t feel tentative about writing me at all. If I’m around I want to meet. Even better, I would like to have you over. You’re the reason I keep beer in my fridge that I’ll never drink. I’ll say no if I’m busy. You are invited. Bay Area people driving to Tahoe, give me a heads up so I can make you dinner on your way. Send an email that shows you aren’t a crazy person and come on by.
The incredible Dubin sent me an email recently saying that we need a way to tell the anonymice apart. She suggested ear notches or cutting off toes. I’m not bloodthirsty like she is, but now, in addition to being imaginary, you are all super cute and furry with little twitching noses. Since I am a Rat myself, it makes me feel even closer to you.
Be nice to your fellow commenters. One day, when this blog is gone, all you’ll have is each other.
It hasn't been a problem recently, but I'll throw in a quick reminder that otherwise contentless compliments to me bore all of us.
Thanks for reading!
I am fine with being critiqued. Any good point you have, I want to hear. I don’t need gratuitous meanness, but if it is funny that’s probably fine too. I have ways that I am touchy and can get hurt, but a hard-thinking conversation isn’t one of them. I’m pretty secure, so I’m willing to entertain negative thoughts about me. If they just don’t ring true, I move on. If they do, I’ll sit with them for a while and ask people who really know me to evaluate them. A reasonable tone will help make your point.
I’ve gotten a couple emails recently saying that you’re coming through Sac and wonder if we could meet. I love that. I started this blog to meet real people; that’s the point. Don’t feel tentative about writing me at all. If I’m around I want to meet. Even better, I would like to have you over. You’re the reason I keep beer in my fridge that I’ll never drink. I’ll say no if I’m busy. You are invited. Bay Area people driving to Tahoe, give me a heads up so I can make you dinner on your way. Send an email that shows you aren’t a crazy person and come on by.
The incredible Dubin sent me an email recently saying that we need a way to tell the anonymice apart. She suggested ear notches or cutting off toes. I’m not bloodthirsty like she is, but now, in addition to being imaginary, you are all super cute and furry with little twitching noses. Since I am a Rat myself, it makes me feel even closer to you.
Be nice to your fellow commenters. One day, when this blog is gone, all you’ll have is each other.
It hasn't been a problem recently, but I'll throw in a quick reminder that otherwise contentless compliments to me bore all of us.
Thanks for reading!
Labels: Meta
posted by Megan at 11:39 AM
17 Comments:
that's easy M, mine are the ones you usually ignore! If you come across a comment and you think: I'm going to ignore this, then that's me.
Er..i'm actually the one who thinks that kindness *isn't* boring.
But who knows who I am said the poet. Ah! and och! the woes of being an imaginary person... :(
I do? I don't mean to. That usually means that I agree with it, and it was so well said that there was nothing to add. Put initials or something, so I can tell there's a trend and recognize you from comment to comment.
Justin, I think I can tell your anonymouse comments. It would kill you to believe me on something.
That's okay M, it wasn't meant as a criticism. Initials? I can see this degenerating into a spartacus-type situation...no, but I'm the real anonymous...er..anyway, if you listen carefully-as one does for a mouse- you'll be able to tell when I make an entrance.
The key is, as always, in what isn't said....
Well, hopefully I'm not offending you. It's certainly not the goal.
I'm likely more socially inept than you. But, like you, if I agreed with you, I'd see no point in commenting.
I've always assumed you could see IP addresses, btw. I figure you have some means of banning people, and could probably sort out the anonymouses based on that.
Hmmm, I see someone else already commented in response, makes me wonder if there's more than 1 Justin.
Oh well,
Justin
You aren't at all. It makes me laugh when I'm all "I like hops" and you're all "What exactly are hops?". I've yet to see you be socially inept.
I should figure out if I can see IP addresses. And I don't know how to ban people either. I'm glad that isn't a problem I've had to solve yet.
I don't think Blogger shows you IP address of comments, which is dum.
May I recommend various color dyes (animal-safe, of course) to tell the anonymyce apart? Of course, it depends on how many there are... it might ultimately prove to be impractical and ruin your eyesight from squinting and trying to determine whether it's Burgundy Anonymouse or Maroon Anonymouse, but... there's always multi-colour!
I'd be happy to email you...(anonymous after ennis on last post) I only post anonymously, because I don't have a blogger identity.
Anyway, what's wrong with meta? The whole problem exchange which was the subject from the last post could have been solved by meta-ness. Going meta allows one to use one's self-consciousness as a way of overcoming one's self-consciousness. Think of this--if the lame dude who emailed you the first time had pointed to how lame it was to ask for a photo, the problem would have likely disappeared.
Anway, I have some book recommendations for you (in response to old ones from a long time ago). I'll email them
J
Maybe the 2 Justins are actually one guy with multiple personalities. But maybe he more or less likes his original personality, so the second one is more or less the same as the first, making it really tough for non-Justin observers to distinguish them. Justin #1 (I address you that way because I assume you both consider yourself #1), perhaps you'd best find some clever way to help us tell you apart from that Justimposter.
No way! I'm number one!
Mentioning sex in your dating ad was good, since women who are more into commitment and resources have a way of being selfish. What you should do is take out the expressions "raunchy" and "holy shit"; bearded grad student guys (I was one once) don't tend to be into raunchy, at least not the likable ones. And I don't really think many save boy-molester priests and evil take-over-the-world-cult members consider shit holy.
Probably be a little more willing to have prolonged correspondence with the person to be met before meeting. Not being so willing makes you seem you just want local types, as though you are not at all particular.
Don't be afraid of posting or emailing pictures. Men who aren't visual at the first in judging women tend to be snobby; they tend to be men who associate with a limited circle of people. For instance, to a guy who just meets people at his club, there is no point of judging by appearance which of the eligible females is most promising because he'll meet them all by and by, in a setting that will likely include so much conversation that visual judgment is superfluous.
Maybe what bothered you about econ guy was his formal, "My dear..." attitude? You have a nice generally friendly attitude that is important especially for females to have. Men should make the first move, mostly, I think, and that is easier to do toward a female who is approachable from being generally friendly (which is different from promiscuity, of course). Maybe he won't appreciate that friendly part of you? But who knows? He could just be foreign or very 19th-century, or something else weird.
Well, that is my take.
bearded grad student guys (I was one once) don't tend to be into raunchy, at least not the likable ones.
step314, you have just summarized much of what troubles me about the men i meet (virtually all grad students). the nice ones are threatened by and/or uninterested in anything erotic; the ones who are capable of dealing with it have little else to recommend them. woe is the woman who wants good conversation and hot sex.
Hmmm. I suspect that there's something to be said about what kind of bearded grad student guy you're talking about. There are, after all, certain assumptions about social mores associated with different fields. I happen to have known quite a few grad students in the liberal arts who had healthy sex drives AND could quote a constellation of literary giants. On the other hand, people in, say, mathematical or engineering fields might not be the same way. I couldn't say if it's because of the norms associated with the "culture" they associate in, or because of some sort of connection between the libido and the sort of thinking that dominates in that field. I'm also afraid that I'm the wrong person to ask, since I never really sought out a "clique", while not being antisocial either, so I wound up rubbing elbows with people in my own field (engineering) as well as people in philosophy and creative arts.
I don't see being intelligent and having a healthy libido as being mutually exclusive. Some of these "nice guys" may very well turn out to be beasts (in the good way) in bed, they just don't exactly accentuate that aspect early on in a relationship since such an impression might give prospective mates the wrong idea about their priorities and personality.
For what it's worth, though, Megan shouldn't sacrifice, so "raunchy" is fine. If it turns off some "nice guys", fine. These who have an urge to spread their seed freely can be weeded out fairly easily, I would imagine, since they would obviously be focusing mainly on one topic. It certainly doesn't make sense to settle for less simply because the majority of the people that one, another, most, or all people meet fall into one category or another. It just makes the search more challenging. More material for us to read! :-)
Females can appreciate sexual pleasure greatly without being into raunchy. It is more unselfish for a female to care about sexual pleasure than about comfy material pleasures associated with caring, because males don’t really lose anything when they give sexually (assuming, as I believe should be the case, that males are not required to take care of offspring produced outside marriage, as was the case in France, Italy, Russia, etc., before paternity tests arose). Nothing is bad about female sexual pleasure--on the contrary, it tends to be very special. The problem, Capella, is that the disgusting guys and the boring marriagey females are unwittingly in cahoots in that they both tend to equate unselfish-loving female real sexual pleasure with skanky female stupid fake sexual pleasure. The one to selfishly justify the latter and the other to selfishly justify their not appreciating the former.
It took me a long time to discriminate between girls having fake stupid sexual pleasure and real unselfish sexual pleasure. As an undergrad at UNC, with drunken yahoos seemingly everywhere, there were perfectly clean affectionate quite pretty girls who seemed like they might be interested in me whom I at times steeled myself against because I thought maybe they were too sexual and irrational. But fortunately, I was always (starting from high school) conflicted and puzzled, because the girls (one in particular) who brought out the best most refined feelings in me, the ones emotionally I liked the most, never were the ones who looked like they didn’t think about or value sex much. In graduate school, and since leaving graduate school, I have more-and-more figured things out to my satisfaction, but I was dumb about sex when I was young and even when I was a young graduate student. Perhaps grad students, being more rational in outlook (except perhaps for a few fields), more tend to err on the priggish side; indeed, depravity is an emotional phenomenon.
Actually, females are sexually pleased by males having loving feelings for them. So, in that sense, at least, you must admit you are not right, Capella; for nice guys tend to have more loving feelings. And there are in my opinion numerous ways a wise male can give real sexual pleasure to a female without resorting to sordidness. On the other hand, the (fake) pleasure to a female of raunchiness, I argue, is just a simple temporary pleasure, a kind of chemical addiction to which the brain can become jaded. But then I don’t want to monopolize the thread by impolitely going off into my many theories about things.
Many men who are intelligent, interesting, otherwise wonderful people have real problems when it comes to sex. This is an observation, not a deduction. Perhaps they have little experience with women and are not emotionally ready for an adult sexual relationship, and meanwhile everyone else has gotten too far ahead. Many of them seem to have experienced live-changing tragedies as adolescents. Some of them are capable of accepting their own sexuality but not women's; others seem to want to dispense with both.
It is sad that people like this exist, and one would like not to avoid relationships with amazing people just because they have problems, but it does not seem to be possible to cure them by dating them. If I could rid myself of men like this forever by using the word "raunchy" a few times, I would not hesitate.
step314, do I read you right when it appears that you equate "raunchiness" with "depravity" and then DO say that raunchiness is fake pleasure to a woman? Ok, I'll give you that two definitions (from the dictionary) for "raunchy" are "obscene, lewd, or vulgar" and "exhibiting lust", which may have negative connotations-- especially if you take a black/white view of the separation between "sex-crazed males with little else to recommend them" and "intellectual, eunuch-like gentlemen". But there is another acceptable definition, that of "sexually explicit".
Now, being sexually explicit does not necessarily mean that a female throws herself at every man. That may be true of some women, but certainly not all women. Nor does the opposite apply to all women that are not already excluded as, well, "going around the block". Speaking from personal experience, I've met a good number of women who I could probably call "raunchy" in that they are sexually explicit, especially with the person that they are interested in. Interestingly enough, I think all of these women could probably also be described as feminists. ;-) In either case, being "raunchy", in that sense, would strike me more as being honest about one's own sexuality. It really isn't true that women are either sluts or people who take no pleasure in sexual activities.
I suppose that one could speak of thinking of sexuality as a lower instinct of humans, or as a part of human nature to be embraced (but not at the expense of other portions of the psyche). I tend towards the latter, and I've met many females who do as well... and some males too, though not as many. I'm not sure if that's due to the fact that I tend to have higher numbers of female friends or if males who take that perspective are scarcer.
step314: "generally friendly (which is different from promiscuity, of course). "
Er...yes. Of course!
This was like reading Mr.Spok doing Oprah (Doing , not "doing", of course!). No, bring back 19th century reticence if the alternative is relationship confessions and advice.
All is forgiven girl. More posts on soil and equations...please :)
Post a Comment
<< Home