Right Wing News interviews conservative female bloggers about dating.
I tend not to date liberals, for a reason. Politics is so important to what I do and I follow it so much. I can't respect a guy who's liberal all that much because it makes me question his intelligence. So, that's a big minus because I'm thinking how smart can this guy be if he thinks John Kerry is a great politician? (Laughs) If he thinks Barack Obama would be a great President, I think, gee, how bright could this guy be?
Ugh. This is almost as annoying as
this essay the other day in the NYT — it's now #1 on their most-emailed list — about these literary types who abhor love from people who don't know all the authors or don't like the right books:
Anyone who cares about books has at some point confronted the Pushkin problem: when a missed — or misguided — literary reference makes it chillingly clear that a romance is going nowhere fast....
[S]ometimes, it’s the Howard Roark problem... “I did have to break up with one guy because he was very keen on Ayn Rand,” said Laura Miller, a book critic for Salon. “He was sweet and incredibly decent despite all the grandiosely heartless ‘philosophy’ he espoused, but it wasn’t even the ideology that did it. I just thought Rand was a hilariously bad writer, and past a certain point I couldn’t hide my amusement.”...
Judy Heiblum, a literary agent at Sterling Lord Literistic, shudders at the memory of some attempted date-talk about Robert Pirsig’s 1974 cult classic “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,” beloved of searching young men. “When a guy tells me it changed his life, I wish he’d saved us both the embarrassment,” Heiblum said, adding that “life-changing experiences” are a “tedious conversational topic at best.”
Look out, there's a lot of aversion out there. But really, my question is, what did those guys who loved John Kerry, Ayn Rand, and Robert Pirsig
look like?
पोस्ट्स
८७ टिप्पण्या:
Ugh. This is almost as annoying as this essay the other day in the NYT...
It's annoying, but that NYT piece is on a plane entirely of its own. "Annoying" hardly does it justice.
Back in college, my mother actually asked a girl I was dating if she was a Republican. She was.
But after that, whenever I dated liberals or Democrats, I tried to warn my mom first.
I think the women in both of these articles will be recycled in about 10 years for one of those "women in late 30s bemoan lack of elligble men" articles that gets run every few years.
Well, John, they'll surely reject you, because you misspelled "eligible."
Snap! Snap! Girlfriend!
"I can't respect a guy who's liberal all that much because it makes me question his intelligence."
I have found that most of the time people are realy proud of their beliefs, as if they were obtained through difficult struggle.
What is odd is that I have also found that most people devote far more intellectual effort into shoring-up what they already believe than to considering alternative conclusions.
"...what did those guys who loved John Kerry, Ayn Rand and Robert Pirsig look like?"
Well, one thing I can guarantee, none of them looked like Gary Cooper.
No, they look like Alice Cooper.
"But really, my question is, what did those guys who loved John Kerry, Ayn Rand, and Robert Pirsig look like?"
Ann, I kinda think those might have resembeled:
http://www.answers.com/topic/joe-palooka?cat=entertainment
Anyone who clings to an ideology, liberal or conservative, is less likely to be an independent thinker, but it ends there. Ideology is more of a product of sociology and psychology than IQ.
As a guy, it doesn't matter if the girl is liberal or conservative. You just want to find a girl who firmly believes that she can do eight tequila shooters in an hour and still keep her panties on.
Ann Althouse: Well, John, they'll surely reject you, because you misspelled "eligible."
I take it that you believe all those women will be spelling bee champions themselves, or find significance in a typo?
Honestly, this boils down to; gals not liking books that appeal mostly to guys (Rand/Pirsig) in their early 20's. Those same women probably snear at terry prachett, Tolkien etc.
You don't see me turning girls away because they read the kite runner...
I take it that you believe all those women will be spelling bee champions themselves, or find significance in a typo?
I met my wife through Match.com and she said what impressed her most was my spelling. She is very liberal and I am kind of conservative so spelling trumped ideology.
Sharon Soon the more apt point in her interview (echoed by Michelle Oddis): the trouble is that "[liberals] don't have the same values [as conservatives] and I find that to be a fundamental problem. ... Their whole world view is different from someone who has conservative values and traditional values as a way of life." That might be somewhat overstated, but I think it's generally true that, by-and-large, liberals and conservatives have fundamentally different assumptions and value systems (see Lakoff works passim). Sometimes it works in such a way that it doesn't make two people incompatible. Sometimes it won't produce friction. Liberals and conservatives can talk (can talk politics, even) without disliking one another. And sometimes it'll produce a lot of friction, but in a good way (compare constructive interference with destructive interference). One can imagine a conservative having a mutually masochistic rebound fling with Janeane Garofalo, for example - combustible relationships can be okay as long as you don't have great expectations for the long term. I continue to be of the view that people are attracted to who they're attracted to, and there's neither any accounting for it nor point in analyzing it. That's just not useful. But I can understand why people -- particularly people who are looking for serious, long-term relationships where they're going to be raising kids, the issue over which differences in values is most likely to surface -- find politics relevant in finding a mate, because politics is about values, and values are relevant to a person's character.
Let's put the boot on the other foot: suppose you believe that George Bush is the devil incarnate. You believe that he has caused immeasurable harm to this country, created a fascist regime that spies on Americans, shredded the Constitution, appointed radical anti-choice theocrats to the Supreme Court (who will in due course overrule the Sacred Writ), has the blood of tens of thousands on his hands as a result of his illegal war for oil in Iraq, may even have had some role in letting 9/11 happen, yadda yadda yadda. It sounds silly to civilized, educated people, but you don't have to dig deep to find a mass of people who believe all of the above. Some of those losers really believe that, and losers need love too. Yet: if you believe all that, how would you reconcile those beliefs against dating someone who was complicit in creating the Bushitler Chimpy McHaliburton Complex? Who voted for that guy? It'd be like being an anti-smoking nut dating Nick Naylor.
Bob said...
"I take it that you believe all those women will be spelling bee champions themselves, or find significance in a typo?"
It's charming of you to assume that those women don't have a double standard where they ask more of their men (or women, we shouldn't presume) than themselves. ;)
This sounds more like shorthand or justification for other incompatibilities a couple are having.
My fiance is an artist, I'm more literary. Our tastes overlap but aren't identical. This is actually a good thing, since it means both of us have things to share with each other.
I wonder if it had occured to the young lady so devastated by her boyfriends' ignorance of Pushkin to share his poems with him, to let him discover Pushkin through the lense of her love. He would have learned about Pushkin, and valuable lessons about her. And in the process, they could have grown closer. Now they're both bereft.
You can't limit your dating based on these things. That's shallow.
When I met my husband, I was extremely liberal and an atheist; he was conservative and a nominal Christian. We had some magnificent political quarrels during the first couple years of married life. Those are fun to reminisce about now. (His favorite is the one where I asked, "So, you consider yourself conservative?" "Yeah, I do." :eyes flashing: "You make me sick!" )
My wife is completely agnostic on political matters. I purposesly sought out those traits in a mate because I do a good enough job pissing her off without bringing politics into it.
"Quality for sheep is what the shepherd says."
-Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Are there conservative women? Other than Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, I mean. Or do all conservative females blog?
Ideology tend to trump rational thought -- most political arguments consist of rationalizations for intuitive positions or tu quoque. I would be leery of hooking up with any ideologue because of this.
But one's beliefs are not immutable, I'm pretty sure, else why would this ex-Goldwater Girl appeal to so many Democrats?
As far as literature goes, I would never expect anyone to have read the exact same things I have. Half the fun of getting to know someone is learning about their enthusiasms. But I would be suspicious of anyone who owned only one book, whether it be Atlas Shrugged, Chicken Soup for the Soul, or The Bridges of Madison County. Similarly women should think twice if the only books a guy owns were written by Bret Easton Ellis or Charles Bukowski.
whoops: "Ideology does tend"
You should definitely date a girl who only owns one book if that book is the Kama Sutra.
Ideology is more of a product of sociology and psychology than IQ
More specifically, I find that the apple never falls far from the tree. A few roll downhill (Hillary), but for the most part they stay right there.
I met my mate exactly 36 years ago. She was an avid McGovern supporter and I was voting for Nixon. We've been together ever since, and we've never argued about politics except on our very first date. We influence each other politically, but it's true, our literary interests have never been much in sync.
You should definitely date a girl who only owns one book if that book is the Kama Sutra.
Imagine the shock of those guys who thought they hit the big time when they found out their girl had a copy of the Vagina Monologues.
Poor bastards
Trooper York: You should definitely date a girl who only owns one book if that book is the Kama Sutra.
Actually, the Kama Sutra's quite boring. IMHO, of course.
So does this mean that I ought not send my bildungsroman of young masculine self-discovery to Judy Heiblum at Sterling Lord Literistic, Inc?
Her webpage says she is "looking for distinctive voices that challenge the reader, emotionally or intellectually....In addition, she is always looking for writers of literary fiction with fresh, uncompromising voices."
With those painful shoes of hers, no wonder she has no fun on dates.
"Actually, the Kama Sutra's quite boring. IMHO, of course."
Well of course it is you are just reading it. A book of maps is boring but if you follow the directions, "Oh the places you'll go!" (Green Eggs and Ham)
George those shoes are stylish. And the desire to wear stylish shoes, however uncomfortable, provides a nice living for podiatrists when women reach 50, and need help for their bunions and hammertoes.
My crack about spelling is meant to allude to the many NYT articles like this.
Next weeks article: "It's Not You, It's Your Self-Regard"
This is the essay about the normal guys and gals who dump pretentious literary types after being forced to suffer through their first poetry reading.
The movie version stars Amy Irving and Peter Reigart.
My crack about spelling is meant to allude to the many NYT articles like this.
The NYT editor should have titled the article as "A Bit of Luck for One Atonement Reader"
And anyone who chooses to call herself "Jaimie" is too indecisive for a relationship. It's either Jamie or Jaime -- make up your mind and pick one, don't endlessly straddle both.
...what did those guys who loved John Kerry, Ayn Rand and Robert Pirsig look like?
I'm reminded of a moment on Politically Correct in which Bill Maher starts to make a point by saying, "women always say they want a man with a sense of humor," and then Jon Lovitz interrupts and says that is not true, in his experience.
An argument could be made (not that I would be so foolhardy as to actually make it) that women in general, and especially "conservative" women, just aren't that deep. They don't want to talk about Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance with you (a book I indeed remember -- albeit from my teens -- as worthy and inspiring, and not as New Agey as its reputation), but nor do they want to talk with you about more respectable mystics like Plato or Schopenhauer. If you take the Buddhist view of things, existence itself and the cycle of birth and death are manifestations of a primordial Fall. Now I ask you, which of the two genders is more connected with birth and the affirmation of life and which of the two is more likely to truck with death and/or try to "break on through to the other side"? Women by nature are more deeply invested in the status quo, and conservative women presumably even more so.
"My crack about spelling is meant to allude to the many NYT articles like this."
I just don't think that is appropriate for a respected law professor to be discussing her crack on a sex thread. Please cease and desist forthwith and leave discussions of cracks to Titus. All the best.
I met my mate exactly 36 years ago. She was an avid McGovern supporter and I was voting for Nixon. We've been together ever since, and we've never argued about politics except on our very first date.
Just so this doesn't sound hostile, I accept what you've written. You and your mate never argue about politics. My question is -- how? It isn't as though the two of you are apolitical. You're both at least moderately interested in politics. So when a political fight is on the front burner, let's say the Borking of Bork, how do you not discuss it and argue about it, given your different perspectives? I find this whole topic fascinating because I've heard so many couples make similar statements. And yet I assume that genuine couples talk about everything with each other. Or do they? Is it done by self-censoring: we don't talk about certain things? By agreeing to agree? How?
Manhattan dating is a highly competitive, ruthlessly selective sport (From the "Essay About Love and Literature)
Sounds like work. For work, I want to be paid. Then I want to go home and relax. And not be bored by a clone of myself.
I always harken back to Winston Churchill. "A man who is not a liberal at 20 has no heart...."
I believe that only the liberals can be the real crusaders. Those who provide the energy for new ideas and undertakings. Since I've always been conservative, I know why I wasn't one of these people.
"...and a man who is not a conservative at 40 has no sense." Clearly, the quoted women already want established men with no vision outside of how to make more money in their chosen field. They don't want someone who may be the next Bill Gates. While the conservatives clearly feel liberalism is a recipe for disaster in our society, it doesn't make one stupid. Most highly educated people (professors and researchers at universities) are liberal. As a guy, I would worry about the intelligence of a woman who placed a poplitical ideology test on date suitability. That pales to the question of whether she has found a loving companion or a heartless philanderer.
I am fortunate as hell and very grateful to have ended up with the person I did. These articles, and others like them, serve only to add another implied exclamation point to that sentence.
Say, what does one do with a date who quotes exclusively from the NYT?
When I make a crack it's just a crack. That's the difference between me and the world's winners. My cracks don't allude to anything, so when I'm called on them the most I can do is crack back, or fold. These secrets winners use are so rarely revealed to us lesser warriors in the status wars.
reader_iam
You find that
Manhattan dating is a highly competitive, ruthlessly selective sport...[which]Sounds like work. For work, I want to be paid.
That’s exactly what Ashley D said to Client # 9.
john
Henry
George
LOL
Trooper Y
ROLF. Attached your comment when I sent this article to friends!
OMG! The NYT woman is speaking on Talk of the Nation right now.
TY
Should have written "ROFL".
Prof A will get me for that typo!
There are two types of men, those who are comfortable in who they are, have a natural assurance, are what we used to call a man's man. They respect women, they encourage women, they are proud of the accomplishments of the women in their lives. Men like George W. Bush are real men, a man's man. Whereas men like John "Coward" Kerry can't be trusted. They put themselves above everyone else. They think they are special, not you. They think they are better than you because of their education or their upbringing or their money. They belittle others to make themselves look more important. They are blind to what laughingstocks they are because they have no respect for most anyone else. They sit on their self-constructed lofty perches and dictate from their self-imposed birds' eye view. They are major turnoffs.
Pfft. Back in the day I never asked a woman about her politics.
It was enough if she had a nice ass and a nice rack and was a blond, brunette, or redhead...possibly skinhead if the rack and ass department were really excellent - I used to drink a little then.
And where did it get me? Three kids and a 32nd anniversary coming up in June.
Anyone who cares about books has at some point confronted the Pushkin problem: when a missed — or misguided — literary reference makes it chillingly clear that a romance is going nowhere fast
What a pretentious snob. I agree with a previous commentator. Instead of dropping the guy because he misquoted an author, how about using the opportunity to have a discussion that might lead to one or the other (or maybe even both of them) learning something new.
I care about books. My husband and I are both advid readers and our bedside stands are piled high with paperbacks and hardbacks. I would, however, have a hard time being in a relationship with someone who never ever picks up any books to read. Neither one of us reads the same types of books, but we both share our thoughts on our own favorites and occaisionally break down and read the other person's book. I certainly am not going to kick my husband to the curb because he doesn't like science fiction and vice versa for me and military spy novels.
I do think that people on complete opposite ends of the political spectrum, or on any spectrum, are not very likely to be successful as a couple. I'm a pretty conservative person and would find it very very difficult to get along with a Daily Kos type of liberal on a daily basis. I can only bite my tongue and ignore fundamental disagreements for so long. However, being in complete lockstep agreement with each other has got to be boring as hell.
Some people are single for a good reason.
"Imagine the shock of those guys who thought they hit the big time when they found out their girl had a copy of the Vagina Monologues."
I read some chapters from that craptastic piece of "art" while standing in a Barnes & Noble, because a girl I was dating had spoken highly of it. The only thing that sticks out in my memory is a monologue about a woman whose boorish awful husband had pressured her into shaving off her pubes and about how he "pounded" her mercilessly afterwards. I gotta tell you, I got a rise out of reading that story, and I'm willing to bet the author also got a rise out of writing it.
I know a college English professor who once told me (when she was an undergrad) that she loved Michael Crichton. I'm guessing she doesn't say that to her fellow professors. (I like him, too, but some "literary" types look down their long noses at him for some reason.)
"ROLF... Should have written "ROFL". Prof A will get me for that typo!"
I just thought you were throwing up.
Am I alone in preferring people (men and readers for the purposes of this thread) who defy definition? Predictable tastes in literature or predictable rants on politics are boring.
I'm with Dust Bunny on this.
What a pretentious snob. Any man she breaks up with has been done a favor.
My feeling on the larger issue is that some people are territorial and it doesn't matter if the difference is a small one or a large one, they have to stake out their territory and defend it. Other people can have large differences without getting territorial. It could be politics or it could be what color to paint the bathroom.
I've learned not to discuss politics with my husband. Not because we disagree, since we tend to be in accord, but because he gets upset at what I find mostly amusing. But it's really not that hard to talk about other things. I imagine those who disagree with their partner on politics don't have any more trouble avoiding those conversations than he and I do.
Pol Pot killed anyone who could read or write. He must have had some troubling dates.
Men and women should never argue about politics when you can argue about more important things..like why you don't tighten the tops of the soda bottle properly...or you don't close the ziploc bag correctly..or you didn't put the cap on the toothpaste...or you didn't all seventeen of the pillows on the bed properly...or
...or...sorry...too much information...hey the Yankees got rained out....bummer.
I like to believe that most people don't fit perfectly into one category or the other.
There is quite a bit of gray. There are some things I am liberal about and some things I am conservative about.
I like to think of myself as independent minded and would look for the same.
Politics is the least of the worries.
You have to deal with top/bottom; money or no money; dog lover or no dog lover; intelligence or no intelligence; hog size; hair or no hair; fun or no fun.
I thankfully never get that far because I would prefer as little conversation as possible. The more the conversation the less likely I am to like them.
That's why it is in and out for me.
Usually my first question is top or bottom. Once that is answered we know whether we can jump in a cab or move along.
It is that simple.
And no sleepovers-that is gross and that is my time with the rare clumbers.
Also, generally, when people start talking I get less turned on.
After sex is the worst.
I immediately start putting on my boxers and tell them where they can get a cab. If they start talking I become glazed over and start to get a little sick.
Thats why I enjoy doing it in a bush or somewhere where I can immediately pull up my pants and run away like Madonna in her Justify My Love video.
I usually have my dirty whore kit in my man bag (wet wipes, lube, hand sanatizer, condoms, listerine) at all times in case of those situations.
I love Madonna.
I dated a guy who voted for Bush not once, but twice. I could've forgiven him for the 2nd vote in '04 what with all the 'war on terror' BS not to mention who the ridiculous Democratic nominee was...but there's no forgiving someone for voting for Bush in 2000! That is absurd and there is no excuse whatsoever!
We dated briefly even though I knew who he voted for (he was too hot to stop going out with), but then he left to join a seminary in San Francisco.
Why on earth would anyone want to date a conservative (assuming one means a social conservative)? It means no sex unless you are willing to married--and even then after the wedding.
For anyone college age or beyond, that is just silly.
I just thought you were throwing up.
He was talking to me on the big white phone.
Shirley Temple's short first marriage was to another actor, the tall prettyboy from "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon." Her lasting second marriage was to a man who'd never seen any of her movies.
I found out several years ago my s-i-l had never heard of William Morris. Haven't spoken to her since.
Titus, try cruising the Sweetnewsstand.
From the NYT article, emphasis added:
"A broken heart, like the crack of dawn, can’t be fixed, said a wise friend, but I was hoping that the splint of male attention might at least encourage healing "
Don't they have editors there? If I were a girl, the last clause would make me squirm. And who uses splints in the age of Viagra?
"I found out several years ago my s-i-l had never heard of William Morris. Haven't spoken to her since."
That's kind of harsh to not talk to her just because she never heard of your agent.
That would be Wallpaper William Morris. All my agents are covert.
Okey Dokey, by the way the guy you were referring to was John Agar and they fell in love during the filming of Fort Apache where they played lovers.
all seventeen of the pillows on the bed
Never marry or even get involved with a woman like that. Even before you see her bedroom, ask if she knows what a "pillow sham" is. I don't have that problem, but sometimes I have been lured to a B&B, where I never know where to stack the 12 extra pillows.
Hey, I like to complain, but I love her and every one of the pillows, drapes, bed crowns, shams, doilies, china closets and comforters that she brought to our blessed union. Of course she has to put up with my cigars, books, dusty old wine collection, kitchen equipment, boxing memorabilia, and the occasional throw away piece in case we get caught short outside of club Kahula. It's all about compromise.
And if you arrange those extra pillows just so, you can enhance the re-entry angle if you know what I mean my little astronauts.
Why on earth would anyone want to date a conservative (assuming one means a social conservative)?
The first and most obvious reason a woman could have for dating a socially conservative man is that the woman herself is -- gasp! -- a social conservative too. Southern Baptist church services ARE co-ed, you know. :)
Trooper York: You just want to find a girl who firmly believes that she can do eight tequila shooters in an hour and still keep her panties on.
Oh, right. Like a nauseated woman with crotchless panties is my idea of a dream date. No thankyew! ;-)
I much prefer an intelligent woman who can make a decision, has no self-esteem or substance abuse issues (but that doesn't mean teetotaller), and is an optimist.
Everything else, including looks and political bent, remains a possibility - or a challenge if you prefer - if she's basically bright, coherent, and happy.
The women interviewed who have hangups about liberal men simply fail the test because they're too intellectually narrow to qualify as bright. I mean, would they really refuse a date (depending on their ages) with Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Brad Pitt, Denzel Washington, David Letterman, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Alex Rodriguez, Dr. J, Michael Berube, David Neiwert, Paul Allen, George Soros, Bono, etc&tc simply because they're too liberal?
It sounds more like they simply have serious issues relating to people who don't fit their constricted and fearful lives.
Yay! Finally found it, thought it was lost forever. That #1 emailed NYT article reminded me of Peter Thorpe, who at the time was associate professor of English at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and who, unless he was tenured, wrote a book that would have otherwise been a career ending apostasy called Why Literature Is Bad For You. The book amounts to an amusing and entertaining screed against undergraduate and graduate students and their professors in the "humanities". Thorpe divides the book, through anecdotal evidence, into five general ways he believes saturation in literature is pernicious to one's psyche.
1) Seven types of immaturity include outgrowing loved ones, fomenting crises, refusal to cooperate as a virtue, fatalism for excuse, self-centeredness instead of self-knowledge along with lust for revenge and disrespect for elders and authority. I admit to showing all of those.
2) Seven ways to unawareness, include projecting motivation onto others, categorizing people in accordance to prototypes found in literature, projecting and replacing one's own feelings onto others, laziness by reading instead of living, an acceptance of incompetence and by encouraging aggression and hostility. I dare say, all my friends show those.
3) Five paths to unhappiness. Doesn't this sound like Eastern philosophy? Literature encourages paranoia, and obsession with the past. It tends to lead to either over materialism or an irrational anti-materialism, an expectation that you're due gratitude of others, and an excessive tendency to worry.
4) It shrinks mental powers through false memories, a misuse of opinion, wrong use of evidence, and by encouraging a detachment between ideas and their consequence. Rather like the whole of Islamic literature, but that's me just being mean.
5) It ruins communication by distorting language, through poor writing, and by both invading privacy and gossiping aaaaand by encouraging censorship.
In short, Peter Thorpe didn't much care for the people who surrounded him. As a misanthrope myself I recommend this book.
You can buy it for a mere $2.75 + $3.00 shipping from Abebooks.com
Or here for $6.00 + $4.00 shipping, if you prefer Amazon.com
I mean, would they really refuse a date (depending on their ages) with [various liberals
If the women in question were liberal, would you find it impossible to believe that they would "really refuse a date" with Rush Limbaugh?
What a pretentious snob.
More specifically, a culture snob. Sex & The City is a fun show, but I wouldn't want to date any of its characters for more than a few nights.
now if only someone would write the companion Why Movie Watching Is Bad For You
initial bullets
• paranoia and obsession with people stating, "this is just like that movie when..." Life does not follow art. And rare is the case when any movies are art anymore.
• preoccupation with actors and actresses occupying the minds of the masses as important people with important jobs.
• people imagining themselves to be neo on the matrix is just stupid, in other words loss of originality and thinking on your own.
• experience: I've been disillusioned with the whole system and driven to the middle of nowhere in the middle of the tall grass prairies and actually filmed it. Kevin Costner never ever shows up, not even on a bicycle with an apple in a carrying case. Okay, one time there was a guy with a dog and he said he thought he knew me, and I forgot how to answer in lakota speak.
You Pushkin in
And you Pushkin out
You do the Hoky Poky
And you shake it all about.
For me, if I were a woman, the key to turning down George Soros would be remembering that he was actually either one step up or one step down from a Kapo for the Nazis in WWII, depending how you look at it.
Paul Newman? Happily married.
Robert Redford? Have you seen him lately?
A-Rod? Notorious philanderer; probably diseased; wife will kill you.
The others I don't know or don't care. Question is, if you didn't know them and their star power or wealth, would you still want to go home with them? Let's pretend you don't believe that all women are whores.
"when a missed — or misguided — literary reference makes it chillingly clear that a romance is going nowhere fast...."
Ugh. Reminds me of an old relationship I'd have soon forgotten. to each their own.
Date? - Paul Newman,(no) Robert Redford,(no) Brad Pitt,(oh dear god no) Denzel Washington,(maybe) David Letterman,(once) Jon Stewart,(no) Stephen Colbert, (who?) Alex Rodriguez,(who?) Dr. J,(who?) Michael Berube,(who?) David Neiwert,(who?) Paul Allen,(who?) George Soros,(no) Bono,(no!) etc&tc simply because they're too liberal?
Seriously, who are these people and is there any reason whatsoever that I or any woman would be expected to find them datable? Newman and Redford are way to old for me and I'm not young. Brad Pitt... ewww. Denzel Washington would be fun to meet as would David Letterman. But Soros? I think I'm insulted at the suggestion that I (or my ideological sisters) would even for a *moment* be impressed by money.
Would you date Ann Coulter?
Oh, and for all that social conservatives are normal people... the most obvious reason to like the idea of someone who won't fornicate with you is that they also won't commit adultery with anyone else.
And unless you've messed up badly the marriage won't involve those herpes medications they advertise on television or any other cause for having to use condoms. You could get what the governor of New York couldn't get for $4,000.
If you are conservative, and want to be with a liberal, it is workable, permissible and okay (Rule 41b, Subsection K, Conservative Bible). Make sure the household gets early ballots, and always offer to mail them. Make sure to lose one ballot (not yours).
Come home and listen to one's liberal significant other with a warm feeling inside knowing that the more they talk, the less it matters. You have successfully suppressed their vote while maintaining a loving relationship. (Be sure to break up or divorce before this comes to light).
Prof A
Your quip re ROLF
“[You] just thought [I was]throwing up.”
I had you from ROLF.
Knowing the way your mind works, I'd have thought you would've assumed that ROLF was an acronym for "Rolling On The Lounge Fornicating"
BTW, long, long ago, in the '70s, Dewars Scotch had a series of ads featuring "profiles", in a Q&A form, of celebrities of the 15 minutes of fame kind who swore that Dewars was their favorite drink. One of the Qs asked was "Favorite Book Read" (or maybe it was "Last Book Read".)
The answers were a hoot, generally whatever '70s cliché was then used for PC. You know, The Greening of America, some Paul Ehrlich thing, some Global Freezing thing, Gravity's Rainbow, or something by some now generally long forgotten-guy like Ginsburg. Each answer carefully prepared, one assumes, by a PR flack to give our celeb some "gravitas”.
Back to the present & the announced or show reading by insecure dates & to complete your analogy, these insecure people was reminded me of Dorothy Parker's comment about AA Milne (don't think he used periods after his initials).
"Tonstant Reader [for those of you not of an age, “Constant Reader” was Parker's nom de plume] frowed up."
I much prefer an intelligent woman who can make a decision, has no self-esteem or substance abuse issues (but that doesn't mean teetotaller), and is an optimist
Optimistic disposition and the ability to disagree without taking it personally are about 90% of the whole deal, IMO.
Still, mixed marriage in either the political or religious sense, when both of you hold strong positions, is asking for trouble.
Dr. J,(who?)
Who???
WHO?????
Did you ask... argh! I'm old.
Oh, THAT Dr. J.
That's the only Dr. J I could think of but, dang, isn't he dead?
He's only 58, Synova.
And in the 20+ years since his retirement, he's been quite busy and productive in a number of areas.
Now I feel old. Though not that old.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा