Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    I feel that simply (perhaps over-simply) that the situation depicts
    a guy who's out for a romp in the hay.  If he asks a girl who is also 
    looking for a romp in the hay then they will both get what they
    want.  If not he might get his face slapped.  I never had much use
    for the barroom scene for the purpose of meeting someone.  Most
    of the time I went to a club it was because of the band which was
    there at the time.  I guess what I'm really trying to say is that
    I really don't know what I'm talking about here. :')  (Here's everyones
    golden opportunity):')
    
                                                      Mike 

    If I were at a bar, I'd much rather have an honest approach.
    
    When a man asks a woman if she wants to romp in the hay, assuming
    he's been polite about it, not trying to force attention on her or
    something, there's usually no need to slap his face.  She says
    either, "No, thanks, I'd rather not," or "Yes, thank you, do you
    want to get something to eat first?" depending on her inclination.
    
    --bonnie 

    
    >"Yes, thank you, do you want to get something to eat first?" 
                                            
    Thanx for the tip...
    I'll let you know how this works out...

    How about Steven Wright's approach...
    
    
    
    
    "Do you live around here often?"
    
    
    
    Wes

    an interesting line:
    
    "How about having breakfast with me...shall I call you or nudge
    you?"
    
    

    re: .6
    
    you forgot to mention what you thought of the line.
    
    i've heard that one in radio commercials, and laugh every time.
    
    but then, that is something that i would never say.......
    
    ......................................jonathan

    In this day and age, one might ask:
    
    ``Would you like to visit the pathology lab with me and then grab
    some dinner?''
    
    -- PK

    How about
    
    "Do you come here often or do you usually wait until you get 
    home ? "
    
    Steve
   

First, a correction to the title of Feynman's book; _Surely 
You're Joking, Mr Feynman_.  I gumped it up in the basenote.

Well, I guess I was hoping to see the discussion take on more 
dimensions and not merely fall into swapping bar pickup lines 
back and forth.  Let me kick this one upside the metaphor and 
wrassle it around.  The basenote started with my appreciation
for the as-told-to memoirs of a famous physicist.  While I do
like his fresh approach to matters great and small, I know
that Dick Feynman was a product of his times, and his attitudes
towards women seem indicative of those times.  I didn't like 
those attitudes much.  I experienced some cognitive dissonance
while reading.  See, I wanted to like this guy, even though
his attitudes towards women as revealed by these memoirs was 
condescending or "user"-oriented.  I eventually have to shrug
and say to myself, "OK.  He grew up with different standards.
This is a different society today.  He'd be different in today's
world, so I don't have to be uncomfortable about his different
standards as long as I recognize them."

This seems to me like a good departure point for reflection
on what the differences are.  I don't feel the way Feynman did.
For awhile in my late teens and early 20s I may not have been
averse to casual relationships but the posturing and aggression
required always seemed so false that there was little point to
initiating such an encounter; it was guaranteed to be worthless.
[ Hindsight speaking; I couldn't have articulated why I felt so
unsatisfied by those relationships during those years, but its
pretty clear now. ]

So its evident that in some respects my society programmed me to
seek out and enjoy casual sex, as Feynman's did him; in other
ways, my society has also programmed me to seek values and to
exchange mutual respect through a committed long-term sharing
of those values and virtues.  To grow with a partner, if such
is sought.  These of my needs are not met in causal encounters.

Jim Richards and I exchanged some generation gap reflections in
the lost masculinity note (270.106-270.108) which also relate to
this topic; how do we see our needs as men in a different light
than men of 2, 3 or 4 decades ago?

Steve Mallett did reflect on this area, and he points out:
    
     o	I don't know how well that exact approach would work
    	in today's scene, but I strongly suspect that there is
     	a modern-day equivalent.  

To me, Steve is saying that much of the societal programming from
Feynman's era is still around.  He went on to say:

     o	Though it's not a likely prospect, if I *were* to go to a club
    	to meet someone, it would most assuredly not be with the intention
    	of instant sexual encounter.  Lots of reasons, some pragmatic,
    	some emotional.  

Again, recasting this in my words, Steve recognizes that he's 
had some social programming that emphasizes other values than 
the "instant sexual encounter".  If I'm taking undue liberties, 
Steve, let me know.

If you'll grant me the hypothesis, then, that our roles as men in
this society have changed vastly in the past 40 years, then it
seems that maybe we can attempt a design review.  Lets examine 
this big model with a few hard questions in mind.  While I don't
really think we'll change anything, perhaps we can get a better
handle on it and learn from the exercise.

So here comes this kicked-up metaphor:

 - Did anyone actually design this vast modification or are we
caught in the culture shock of a big hack job?  

Now folks, I mean that as rhetoric.  I'm trying to pose the image
of a society in transition as like a big software project with no
one in charge.  Put in a wry smiley here if you like.

 - Can we examine how we men have had our socialization and 
conditioning redone?  
 - Can we evaluate the changes for better, for worse?
 - Is it a viable system?  Whats been lost from the design, 
whats been gained?
 - Do our male-female roles make sense?  

DougO