Does this cloth smell of chloroform to you..?
Chat-up lines. We’ve all used them or heard them. They’re a bunch of fucking BS, only one step above “nice weather, today?” in the intelligence stakes and only one step below “I love your bazoongas” in the tact stakes. It’s all pre-packaged, slimy nothingness which… etc. I didn’t really want to discuss them all day, because anybody that needs the rubbishness of chat-up lines explained to them also needs a spike in the face and I can’t manage that from here.
No, what I want to discuss is my second sentence. We’ve all used or heard them. We can segment that into – all men have used them, and all women have heard them. And that’s a general fact. And it’s a very telling general fact – men always use them on women, and not the other way around.
Okay, I’m still talking about sodding chat-up lines and I don’t want to. Let’s expand it to: Men start chatting up women, usually, and not vice versa. That’s true, right? And I’m not talking about chat-up lines, either, which is good for my blood pressure. Chatting someone up is a subtle, protracted affair with a whole host of interesting techniques that makes it fun for both parties (assuming one isn’t more hideously malformed than the other). But why do men always start chatting the women up?
I’m mentioning this, because I’ve had chats with various lady friends, that have made it apparent that girls find it hard to approach men in this way. Even stupendously fit girls. The ones that get chatted up by two hundred guys when they step outside to collect the milk. They’re quite at home being hit on once every millesecond from the time they step into public till the moment they send the last guy crying back to his pornography, but if you ask them to choose a guy they like and go hit on them, they’re as lost as a lobotomised bint trying to navigate the Hanger Lane gyratory at two to nine in the morning.
Oh – wait a second – I do realise that girls find it easy to attract guys. They can dress with effect, dance your soul away and turn their eyes and smiles into long-ranged, gibber-inducing devices which would win any battlefield stalemate. What I’m talking about isn’t the subtle stuff. I’m talking about what guys have to do – actually approach and make first contact.
Why would women have to do that? To put it simply, although guys might have a general, relative charm of exactly zero Kelvins when compared to women, they at least get to choose the girls they chat up (or the ones they think about chatting up for hours and hours before going home and sleeping alone, for the entire rest of their lives). Women, on the other hand, are usually stuck with who they get coming to them. They might try and attract some dude from afar, but at the end of the day they will end up with whoever chooses to go and talk to them. And there’s a fair chance the guy will be a cunt.
So it’s a problem for girls – that they can’t actively choose the total oafs they want to fuck them over. Why?
Well, it’s not like I have the answer. What did you expect, a detailed explanation of the cause and a paradigm shift in favour of the solution? Ha – not today. I have no idea.
Damn it's sunny in London. I’m off to the park.
No, what I want to discuss is my second sentence. We’ve all used or heard them. We can segment that into – all men have used them, and all women have heard them. And that’s a general fact. And it’s a very telling general fact – men always use them on women, and not the other way around.
Okay, I’m still talking about sodding chat-up lines and I don’t want to. Let’s expand it to: Men start chatting up women, usually, and not vice versa. That’s true, right? And I’m not talking about chat-up lines, either, which is good for my blood pressure. Chatting someone up is a subtle, protracted affair with a whole host of interesting techniques that makes it fun for both parties (assuming one isn’t more hideously malformed than the other). But why do men always start chatting the women up?
I’m mentioning this, because I’ve had chats with various lady friends, that have made it apparent that girls find it hard to approach men in this way. Even stupendously fit girls. The ones that get chatted up by two hundred guys when they step outside to collect the milk. They’re quite at home being hit on once every millesecond from the time they step into public till the moment they send the last guy crying back to his pornography, but if you ask them to choose a guy they like and go hit on them, they’re as lost as a lobotomised bint trying to navigate the Hanger Lane gyratory at two to nine in the morning.
Oh – wait a second – I do realise that girls find it easy to attract guys. They can dress with effect, dance your soul away and turn their eyes and smiles into long-ranged, gibber-inducing devices which would win any battlefield stalemate. What I’m talking about isn’t the subtle stuff. I’m talking about what guys have to do – actually approach and make first contact.
Why would women have to do that? To put it simply, although guys might have a general, relative charm of exactly zero Kelvins when compared to women, they at least get to choose the girls they chat up (or the ones they think about chatting up for hours and hours before going home and sleeping alone, for the entire rest of their lives). Women, on the other hand, are usually stuck with who they get coming to them. They might try and attract some dude from afar, but at the end of the day they will end up with whoever chooses to go and talk to them. And there’s a fair chance the guy will be a cunt.
So it’s a problem for girls – that they can’t actively choose the total oafs they want to fuck them over. Why?
Well, it’s not like I have the answer. What did you expect, a detailed explanation of the cause and a paradigm shift in favour of the solution? Ha – not today. I have no idea.
Damn it's sunny in London. I’m off to the park.
LOLLLLLLLLLL that chat up line is well Mexico.
Anon: Surely you should be signing in as Nate? (for our foreign cousins - none of this will make sense. it's UK nonsense)
Undies: Strangely enough, that's the precise formula I was going to undertake a PhD in. They didn't let me, though. "What are you, insane?" or some such reason.
Tradition formed because men being physically superior had the right to choose the girl.Now men can't handle the approach by women. Don't they think that she must be "easy" if she starts the chatting? There is a difference/variation on this subject according to the age and class/type of people. what you said is completely true for the younger generation. When they are slightly mature and confident, women have now learnt to make the first move to get what they want.On the whole you are right though. Why do women have to end up with C who chooses to go and talk to them?
Girls: All guys are losers, no matter if he tries to chat you up or not. If you try to chat a guy up, remember that he is just as much a loser as the last guy who initiated chatting you up. In closing, he is a loser--that is a never ending constanct factor of life--but the real questio is, are you a loser for not seeing through his pathetic loserish lines?
Great post JiB. ;)
NL: Heh, you made me look up the opposite of a misogynist. You damned misandrist. :)
Ms. Butterfly:
I definitely agree on the origins. Tradition is always holding back development.
Thing is, I'm not sure there's a generational gap involved. I think girls approach guys a bit more as they get older, but still not equally. I think, as you mentioned, it's to do with guys taking it the wrong way. Either they become insecure, or they think the girl is cheap, or they pretend the girl is cheap to get over their own insecurity. Something like that, perhaps.
So now I'm thinking that the effect's given momentum by blokes and the way they treat it. So perhaps NL's misandry wasn't so far off after all. Hrm.
Speaking of chat up lines, I've recently been assaulted by two messages on one of my websites. They are particularly charming so I thought I'd share. Mind you, these are direct quotes.
1) "hey what up ? i was look at ur pic and u r really hot do u what to talk ?"
AND even better ---
2) "hey,sorry u donno me but i like your photo so much
really u r queen
i like evry part in your face
i wanna be friend can i?
you are so cute,sexy;)
waiting your replay"
I'm touched.
Oh, and in the States chat up lines are called pick up lines. When the fuck are you ever going to learn to speak English properly?
Yep, sorry about that first message Tree.
(though I did try and disguise my speech as American)
I posted today on something not unilke what you're talking about here.
The problem is the jerks are the ones with confidence, so they're the ones who are going to go up to a girl.
The good guys are the ones chilling with their buddies thinking of what they want to say but not knowing how.
Some guys are scared of a confident girl, some aren't.
It's too bad that it seems taht nice and confident rarely go together for either sex.
JiB, I can turn into a feminist sometimes when I'm not looking. However, I will never, never be able to live with the token hairy legs that some fiesty fems sport in nonconforming effort. One must admit, though, that if one or more persons do the same thing (in this case, refrain from picking up a Venus razor for a much-needed shave to smooth and beautify one's legs, armpits, etc--and we know there are other places women shave, so don't question the etc.), then they automatically become a flock of sheep. In this case, the flock needs shearing because women with hairy legs send chills down my spine and bring about a certain level of anxiety to my nature, as I believe I have a hairy leg phobia.
That is so off topic and probably makes no sense, but it's nice to share. I feel like I just had a therapy session, only this one is free and my therapist isn't staring at me, trying to think of some way to assure me that I am perfectly normal and as close to sane as anyone can get.
She's really a terrible liar. ;)
I hope these meditations are not too extended for the comment form so as to require a post in their own right.
Chief Slacker says: "The problem is the jerks are the ones with confidence, so they're the ones who are going to go up to a girl. The good guys are the ones chilling with their buddies thinking of what they want to say but not knowing how."
Oh dear. The "guys" who "chill" with "their buddies" are in no sense "good". By definition, women will never have heard guys chilling. Let me recreate one from memory:
Scene: a pub, late evening. Cast: a group of men
First man: Geoff, you're a wanker
Second man: No I'm not, you cunt
First man: Yes you are. Mike, isn't Geoff a wanker?
Third man: Fuck off; it's your round.
First man: No it isn't, I fucking bought the last one.
Third man: No you didn't, you tosser
And so on,usque ad nauseam.
Lest you think that the characters in this vignette of Chekhovian subtlety and sensitivity are from the lumpen-proletariat we now know as chavs (vide supra), let me assure you that I have heard such conversations in every part of Britain, delivered in regional working class accents (not that many of these exist now, most having been eroded by the crude all-purpose demotic delivered by the television soap operas that make modern life so gay) but also in the finest RP* at Twickenham or Henley.
Men or boys in groups, with or without alcohol are far from good or admirable. They are vile and stupid. I have extensive experience of this, since I am a man educated mostly in single-sex institutions, and since then have had to endure fools who think that because I have semi-functioning male genitalia that I am interested in football. To chase this hare a little further, I also have a theory that single-sex education predisposes one to unhappiness in love, if one emerges form the process as a heterosexual. I should be most interested to know how many contributors to LIAC are fellow victims of the educational theory that holds that it is good for girls and boys to be educated apart, in case they might learn to understand one another or even love one another a little more adroitly in later life?
It is obvious from this discussion that we all need to go back and read or re-read Ovid, especially the Ars Amatoria.
I write in Ovidian exile by the sea, though I too once thrilled to the force of the modernism of the Hanger Lane Gyratory. The very name makes one want to dance one's car round it.
*Note for readers from the colonies and former colonies: RP=Received Pronunciation, it or Oxford English are generally taken to be the most correct form of spoken English. Observe that this is not the same as the Queen's English. Her Majesty is generally thought to speak with a déclassé form of the accent, perhaps the better to be understood by her subjects, perhaps because of the innate vulgarity of the modern British royal family.
Actually this is a better link for the Ovid: full text in Latin in the splendid Perseus Digital Library at Tufts, with English translations, including Marlowe’s
L. Swain & Chief Slacker:
I think that Chief Slacker's comment stands firm, if taken to mean; that the problem with the guys approaching the girls, is that they're mainly cunts. I'd say 92% of them are the typical, drunken/loudmouthed/over-confident pricks that don't give a shit about anything except the various strains of STD they carry. So girls have a problem in that these are the guys approaching them, which I think is what was being said.
L. Swain:
I am also a victim of the "heterosexual in single-sex environment during adolescence" phenomena. My views on it are so massively extensive (as are yours, I expect, and many others) that we should probably wait until someone posts about it, before the opinions are burped up and strewn about like fractal excretions beneath the main vomitus. Obviously, the initial puker (an actual word, Lordy) will probably be me unless someone beats me to it.
duch: Hope you made it off there by lunchtime...
NL: Absolutely. Therapy here in LIAC is of the form, "yes, you are insane, but join the club". We don't pander to that "please tell me I'm fine" crowd. You're not fine. You're totally fucked.
(using the Royal "you", there)
...gah...
Chief Slacker: I think you're 100% right, even if we can all prove you 100% wrong with big words and fancy philosophies.
I do not think that either sex is comfortable approaching eachother in a chatting-up/pick-up/hit-on situation because of the environment we decide to do it in. And also because of the co-existence of "buddies" that are going to give you shit, in that environment.
What you are actually saying to the opposite really has no impact if you're not hot, or fit, or whatever. Especially if you're in some seedy Canadian bar like, "Pig Fucks" (Big Bucks) or "Arizonas."
And of course, if you are hot or have enough confidence, and do get shot down by this Ms. or Mr. X that seems so unbelievably outstanding, you're obviously going to be teased by all of your friends, female or male, because the genders individually aren't assholes, we're ALL ASSHOLES.
So it really has nothing to do with who has a penis and who has a vagina, but basic peer pressures by the assholes surrounding you.
And Lovelorn Swain, it is a pitty that you experienced such awful group encounters with your own gender. But rest assured, that I know exactly what my boyfriend is doing when he goes to, "chill with the boys," and am quite happy to know.
But you are right, I do not think he is "good" because of it, I think he is perfect because of it.
You're right - we're all assholes (esp. you) and we take the piss out of folks that get shot down on the approach. We all do. Not just your friends, but the person you're approaching, all their friends, their friend's friends, the barman, the bouncers, everybody's mailing list and the little self-deprecating git in your head. That's why people hesitate to do it. But I knew that aged 9 and three-quarters.
The post is about why men approach women more often than vice versa. Not about why we're all insecure fucktards.
Tradition, nice and simple. A few people have agreed on that now. I knew it couldn't have been too hard, but my brain's been melting out of my ears lately.
A poll is a fantastic idea. I'm sure one will self-organise, under whomsoever's post about single-sex schools and cuntuperry.
You're both right :(