mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (05/02/85)
Lots of flak has been flying about the behavior of people in singles' bars.
Some go there to dance, some to meet people, some, apparently, to drink and
think about dancing. And some go to watch the other people. I'm sure there
are other reasons as well.
Problem: if people go there for all kinds of different reasons, how can
everyone get what they want out of the scene?
Answer from most people (and we hope to get them out of the gene pool):
assume the other person is there for the same reason you are there, and be
obnoxous.
If I went to a singles bar to dance, I wouldn't want to talk. But if I
went there to meet people, I would. The main problem is there are those
who go to get laid, and they assume everyone else does as well. But the
overtly rude behavior that is the only defence against these toadies offends
and hurts the nice people who are simply at cross-purposes.
For this, I recommend that if you want to dance, ask someone to dance, and if
you want to start a conversation, ask if you can join {whomever}. And don't
be rude, except in self-defence. And don't think the less of someone who
looks like he/she wants to ask to do either, but does nothing.
Of course, this doesn't cover rude behavior on the dance floor, such as
wandering hands and simply walking off, but toadies will be toadies. Say this
to yourself three times when it happens, and you'll feel smug, at least.
But don't put up with it.
There are some who feel left out if they don't ask, and guilty if they do.
Why? They get the impression the askee resents the interruption.
-Eric
...!ucla-cs!mccolmchris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck) (05/09/85)
>Answer from most people (and we hope to get them out of the gene pool): >assume the other person is there for the same reason you are there, and be >obnoxous. Well put. >The main problem is there are those >who go to get laid, and they assume everyone else does as well. I've said (posted) this before, and I'll say it again. What's wrong with going out to get laid? It's just as valid a goal as going out to dance or going out to meet people. The only problem I can see with it would be dishonesty, i.e., don't tell someone you're interested in really getting to know them if you just want to go to bed with them. I know this was not meant to be one of Eric's major points, but I had to react to it because this kind of attitude seems to come up on the net all the time. Did I just hallucinate the Sexual Revolution, or did everyone else just forget it (or worse, believe Time's cover story that it's over). Again, sorry Eric. I don't mean to pick on you in particular. I'm trying to use your posting to make a larger point. Chris
seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) (05/12/85)
In article <640@pyuxc.UUCP> chris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck) writes: >>The main problem is there are those >>who go to get laid, and they assume everyone else does as well. > >I've said (posted) this before, and I'll say it again. What's >wrong with going out to get laid? > >Chris The problem isn't that they are going out to get laid, the problem is that they are ASS-U-MEing that everyone else is also out to get laid. Can you say "egocentric"? Good! People go to bars for a variety of reasons. Some go to drink. (Hopefully these people are taking the bus/cab/etc back home) Some go to dance. Some go to play videogames. Some go to meet people (in general). Some are looking for an SO. Some are looking for a one-night-stand. Some are out-of-town with nothing better to do. Some just tagged along when the rest of the volleyball team went. Some go to see the band. Some go to 'scope-out the crowd. (people watch) Some go to sit in front of the projection TV and laugh at the Cubs. And so on... Anyone going to a bar and ASS-U-MEing that anyone else there is there for anything resembling the same reasons is highly likely to be dissappointed. Snoopy tektronix!mako!seifert "Drink up, now, it's gettin' on time to close"
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (05/13/85)
>>The main problem is there are those >>who go to get laid, and they assume everyone else does as well. > >I've said (posted) this before, and I'll say it again. What's >wrong with going out to get laid? The problem is that they assume everyone else wants to as well. >...The only problem I can see with it would be dishonesty, i.e., >don't tell someone you're interested in really getting to know >them if you just want to go to bed with them. >Chris This is a prevalent deception. Let's face it; the attitude of the people I am trying to ridicule resembles a Minimax game tree strategy rather than a human social interaction. Because of this, these sorts will follow any behavior they think will achieve the goal. It would be nice if there was some socially acceptable way that people who are interested in spending the night with anyone could communicate this outright, rather than engaging in mating dances of ludicrous sophistication. The real purpose of the Sexual Revolution was (I thought) to allow people to be more honest about their sexual feelings and desires. Unfortunately, I don't think it's working. The only real advantage of this would be that people who want to dance could dance, people who want to meet people can meet people, and people who want to satisfy their carnal urges can do that too, all without social firewalking, deception, hurt feelings, etc, etc, etc. That is, without worrying that the person you are talking to now doesn't want what you want. Of course, there also has to be a socially acceptable way of saying either yes or no, to any of the above propositions. Alas, there is currently no socially acceptable way to communicate *just* what you want out of the person you are talking to. And reading body language and vocal inflections is difficult in a hot, smoky, dark, and noisy singles' bar. This doesn't solve the whole problem, of course, but I think it might be an improvement. Any better ideas? --fini-- Eric McColm UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,ucbvax,cepu,sdcrdcf,trwspp}!ucla-cs!mccolm ARPA: these days, who knows? Q1: "The world is round. Forever. The rest is up to us." Q2: "Reason is Peace; Fanaticism is Slavery; Tolerance is Strength."
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (06/05/85)
In article <ucla-cs.5376> mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (Eric McColm) writes: >>Chris >>I've said (posted) this before, and I'll say it again. What's >>wrong with going out to get laid? >The problem is that they assume everyone else wants to as well. >>Chris >>...The only problem I can see with it would be dishonesty, i.e., >>don't tell someone you're interested in really getting to know >>them if you just want to go to bed with them. >This is a prevalent deception. Let's face it; the attitude of the >people I am trying to ridicule resembles a Minimax game tree strategy >rather than a human social interaction. Because of this, these sorts >will follow any behavior they think will achieve the goal. I don't think very many people are fooled. After all, if you really wanted to get to know someone, why go to a place which is: A) Too loud to talk. B) Too dark to see. C) Too smokey to smell. D) Too progressive for touch (Lawrence Welk style) dancing. There is no such thing as instant intimacy. Sex is no substitute. On the other hand, it sure makes being lonely a lot more fun. >It would be nice if there was some socially acceptable way that people >who are interested in spending the night with anyone could communicate >this outright, rather than engaging in mating dances of ludicrous >sophistication. The real purpose of the Sexual Revolution was (I thought) >to allow people to be more honest about their sexual feelings and >desires. Unfortunately, I don't think it's working. The Sexual Revolution is over. We lost. Herpes and AIDS won. Frank Silbermann ANYBODY OUT THERE FROM PALATKA, FLORIDA?