Addendum on match.com
You were all rooting for the cute editor, I know. I can hear it from here: "Y'know, there's really nothing wrong with Esquiver that a decent editor couldn't fix."
But get this: in his last email, he blew the imply/infer distinction. This, from a senior guy at a national daily! Geez. Tell me how it is, again, that I can't get work in this industry?
Here's something else that's curious: I was careful to stipulate in my ad that I really, really don't care how tall my date is. And, mostly, I meant that. The full truth is that my ideal male aesthetic height is in the 5'5" - 5'8" range, because (1) it's more seemly, (2) I prefer to rest my head on his shoulder, not his hip (Bill: don't. Just...don't), and (3) all other things being equal, fit and attractive short guys simply look better put-together. (Hollywood knows this. I met a lot of male movie stars while in London -- under circumstances far less glamorous than that statement might imply -- and, to a man, they were much shorter than you'd expect.) But, in the real world, of course, all things are rarely equal, and, in the end, it's simply not a big deal any which way.
I have a lot of short male friends whose favorite pastime is complaining about the unreasonable verticality demands of women, so I was expecting to be pleasantly inundated by diminutive, grateful MOTs, which was, of course, my secret plan all along.
Except that hasn't happened.
Pretty much all my respondents have been over 6', with the most recent -- I kid you not -- claiming to be 6'6". Surely, each of these bachelors is a trophy for the conventional date-seeking woman, yes? Why waste all that much-esteemed tallness on little ol' indifferent and neurotic me?
What it is, I'm guessing, is that these men are perfectly aware of their premium, but don't much care for being regarded as Height Objects.
Funny how that works, isn't it, guys?
But get this: in his last email, he blew the imply/infer distinction. This, from a senior guy at a national daily! Geez. Tell me how it is, again, that I can't get work in this industry?
Here's something else that's curious: I was careful to stipulate in my ad that I really, really don't care how tall my date is. And, mostly, I meant that. The full truth is that my ideal male aesthetic height is in the 5'5" - 5'8" range, because (1) it's more seemly, (2) I prefer to rest my head on his shoulder, not his hip (Bill: don't. Just...don't), and (3) all other things being equal, fit and attractive short guys simply look better put-together. (Hollywood knows this. I met a lot of male movie stars while in London -- under circumstances far less glamorous than that statement might imply -- and, to a man, they were much shorter than you'd expect.) But, in the real world, of course, all things are rarely equal, and, in the end, it's simply not a big deal any which way.
I have a lot of short male friends whose favorite pastime is complaining about the unreasonable verticality demands of women, so I was expecting to be pleasantly inundated by diminutive, grateful MOTs, which was, of course, my secret plan all along.
Except that hasn't happened.
Pretty much all my respondents have been over 6', with the most recent -- I kid you not -- claiming to be 6'6". Surely, each of these bachelors is a trophy for the conventional date-seeking woman, yes? Why waste all that much-esteemed tallness on little ol' indifferent and neurotic me?
What it is, I'm guessing, is that these men are perfectly aware of their premium, but don't much care for being regarded as Height Objects.
Funny how that works, isn't it, guys?
2 Comments:
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 7:53 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 1:53 AM
Post a CommentRE: 'Bill: don't. Just...don't'
I am not. HOWEVER--you do realize the implication, don't you? People who do not know me (and not just your niece) are going to think I am a potty mouth (and not just a potty mind).
So, in the interest of clarity, I am NOT a potty mouth--but I am tall (and a real potty mind, but we digress).
And don't give me that horse hockey about you not wanting to meet someone because they 'blew the imply/infer distinction.' Even casual readers (nevermind the people who know you) have seen you jump at the chance of dating the barely literate and non-English speaking (and sometimes both at the same time), just as long as he was in the 5'5" to 5'8" range ('head on the shoulder'? Those must be some platforms you've got....DAMN IT! I did do it) and the shoulders were broad enough.....What else would explain how you know so much about NASCAR?
In the immortal words of Gene Autry: There's something happening here...what it is, ain't exactly clear. I think you need to find what it is that you want (i.e. if not the K, then what it is about the K that you do like that's still not the K). Otherwise, you're just going to invent specious lies and excuses why all those fabulous guys are no good (like that they are too tall. What rubbish! But again, we digress).
And, for what it's worth, I was rooting for the smoldering astrophysicist, not the editor...but only if the physics guy is closer to 5'5" than 5'8" (I mean WAY closer...whoops! I did it again).
I remain:
A tall non-potty mouth.
Bill Abendroth
Once again, I'm with Bill. Who wouldn't root for a smoldering astrophysicist? (Nerd-hot? Bring it on!)
The last thing you need is an editor as a partner. It's hard enough to make a relationship work without having to deal with the blurred distinction between work and non-work.
<< Home