Picking up lonely chicks..

Post Reply New Topic

Things aren't so black and white. While clothes and looks don't guarantee anything, they are a strong indicator one way or another, Ted Bundy notwithstanding -- he would be an outlier and an extreme example of an exception. In fact, that's why Ted Bundy was so significant, because he was such an exception to a normally fail-safe rule -- people that dress nicely and act professional don't tend to be killers.

The way you dress generally reflects your level of income, your values, and what kind of life you live. What another person might find nice about the way you dress is relative, and dependent on where you are coming from -- Someone here in L.A. in full gang-banger dress (complete with a red or blue do-rag) is sending out clear signals. To a normal, middle class person in mid-city or the Valley, that manner of dress is a warning sign, like the white stripe on a skunk's back -- this person is trouble. To a lower-income person from that same neighborhood, if the person is wearing clothing considered "quality" in that subculture, it connotes power and success (in the gang world). To a rival, it denotes an enemy.

And this spreads to Aspies as well. When I was younger and not very on top of how I dressed, it sent out a signal that I was a dork and didn't have very good control over my life. Women seek out success, not charity cases, so I was ignored. Once I started paying a bit more attention to my clothes, things shaped up.

So yeah -- you see someone dressed like a bum with ruffled hair, and a guy in a suit with a cup of coffee and a paper, which one do you think is more likely to give you a coherent answer or be a good source of life advice? Whose life seems more on track?

To be honest, the guy in the suit sounds like he's going to be the prick of the two of them...

Maybe, but is he a prick because he is confident and knows what he wants? This is the kind of guy a lot of women want -- one who will bring home the bacon.

The mumbling guy that looks homeless isn't bringing home anything besides rot-gut liquor or crack.

In the world of Natural selection, women are going to pick the fittest, not a charity case or someone to "fix." And as a nice guy (somewhat), I've found that I've had to be an as*hole to keep people from walking all over me and taking advantage of me. There is a middle ground between those two examples, btw, I use them because they are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

AGAIN, when we are talking about a vulnerable lady sitting alone on a bench how the guy is dressed is a POOR indicator for her to feel secure.

I stated more than once that the type of mindset you mentioned above might have merit in SOME discussions, but in this particular one it does not. I do not think that anyone should ever be lulled into feeling 'safe' based on how a person is dressed. You stay reserved with your guard up because you just NEVER know.

If it is a well lit place with lots of people around, that's one thing.

I have been in way too many situations in life where I mistakenly or someone else mistakenly thought a person in nice clothes, shoes and hair had something meaningful to say or lived a meaningful life.

You are right it is NOT that black and white. To be honest my posts are more a reflection of that than yours are where you are saying it is usually more accurate to derive these conclusions.

And to those of you 35 and up writing posts like this - the world's a changing. Young men with spiked hair and piercings are directors of corporate depts and smart as hell whilst the guy in a suit might be working in a call center at $8 an hour. My former director was 29, arms covered in tats and piercings. The guy was a genius. So he would be the one to give me a good answer and the conservative 35 year old might not have been able to .... he made an effort to cover the tats and piercings at work and dress somewhat professional but if you saw him after hours you would see this crazy looking guy but he couldn't be further from crazy. This is a trend my friend.....you should shuck your stereotypes now vs later as the world is getting ahead of you.

Making assumptions on outward appearances like this has never been a good idea but in today's society it is really a silly exercise.

I would argue that the tatoos and piercings, while a part of the current trends for some people (I'm 33, btw, and have worked in online and for movie studios with creative directors and the like, so I know a bit about the high degree of variation of style and dress here in L.A.) in cosmopolitan cities and first world countries are still a mark of someone who is making decisions that either run seriously against the general cultural grain of civilized society at large.

At some point, you have to wonder why a person goes to that extent to call attention to themselves (it's sort of like putting gold hubcaps on your car or shiny things on your back window). You also have to wonder what their long-term outlook is on life, given that tattoos distort as we age and gain weight, and piercings develop complications or leave big gaping holes in your face and ears (and other parts of your body) once you stop wearing that kind of jewelry and grow out of that trend. With that in mind, how trustworthy is that person to judge the future of your company in the next 5-10 years? Do they plan to look like that when they are married with kids in high school, and they're 50 years old?

Btw, there's really nothing new -- piercings and tattoos have been around for quite a while, pretty much as long as humanity has been on this Earth. I find it interesting that it's pretty much only third-world tribes in Africa and South America, and counter-culture people here, who do extensive body work like tattoos and piercings. It's interesting that the more civilized a society gets, the less likely someone is to do that to themselves. For "primitives," tattoos come out of need to show status and probably also out of sheer boredom -- after all, not much else to do on the African plain. Here in this culture, we see it pretty much only with people in the lower rungs of society (bikers, sailors, gang members) and people in music or certain art movements -- in all cases, people on somewhat of the fringe of society.

And I have to tell you -- despite my extensive corporate experience in the entertainment industry, very few people I ever worked with had extensive tattooing or piercings. A lot of those people with a lot of bodywork are doing art and music careers, careers whose earnings tend to be intermittent and volatile in the best of times. Creative directors are a very tiny % of the people with tatoos, in a very small % of the total workforce, usually in cosmopolitan cities like L.A. and N.Y. where the counterculture is prominent. They do not represent the majority of tattoo'ed and pierced people.

So if I'm someone looking for someone to be a reliable source of income or support in my life, I'm probably not going to pick that person.

If you see a person with "Vatos Locos" and "Somos pocos pero Locos" tatooed on their back (those are gang tattoos), do you still think it's a silly exercise to profile them?

At some point, you have to wonder why a person goes to that extent to call attention to themselves (it's sort of like putting gold hubcaps on your car or shiny things on your back window). You also have to wonder what their long-term outlook is on life, given that tattoos distort as we age and gain weight, and piercings develop complications or leave big gaping holes in your face and ears

The reasons you think people may get tats have NO bearing on my post above. What i said is very true. There will be a trend that gets higher not lower of people with tats and piercings in leadership roles. These "hoodlums" as I guess you think they are do grow up and some are rather smart. They go thru a rebellious stage but don't we ALL go thru some stage or another? We all show it differently. And when they grow out of it the tats are still there. Accepting smart guys and gals who have tats is all a part of accepting diversity. Not every person with tats is going to be smart and turn to business and not all of them are going to be murderers either. And the director i referenced - as i stated he made attempts to cover it up but it can't all be covered and removing facial piercings still show the obvious holes...

And your mention of gang tats has no bearing on this convo as you are reaching for straws. I am 42 and never saw a gang tattoo in my life so THAT is the exception aobut who you will see in leadership of corp america.

You obviously have a lot of hateful paradigms about people with tats and piercings and are using that to fuel this debate, but what I said still holds a lot of merit. And that trend will continue to grow as Gen Y becomes our leaders. It's highly doubtful either of us will ever be reporting to a guy with Vatos Locos tattoo'd on his back.

I think your posts are just your own way of holding onto the fact that your suit and clean shave makes you stand out as 'better' than those who are different. I am not trying to nitpick here but i can see the bias all thru your posts. YOU might be only 32 but you have an older conservative viewpoint. Nothing wrong with that its your opinion but it is changing and shifting everyday.

By the way I am conservative somewhat in dress and have no tats or piercings, but I do know how to accept diversity and am very aware that our culture is changing. I am going to adapt with it a bit better as I avoid judging books by covers.

Case in point that he now regrets the tattoos and piercings, understands that they have a negative impact in the business environment, and that he's made some poor choices in life in relation to what he needed to do for his future. Some people look to the future and plan... Others live in the moment and regret later.




Your statement above just undermined a lot of your credibility as anyone who has had any real experiences with a broad cross-section of the public -- you seem to be speaking from an ivory tower. How can you go 42 years in life without meeting a biker or gang member? Have you ever been to a public beach? Where do you live? The relevancy of your POV is rapidly shrinking at this point --it sounds like you just interact with people at the office and people in coffee shops. You don't sound like you have enough personal experience with other people (or the ability to recognize and make observations) to really ring in on this topic.



Once again, a broad assertion both about the habits of Gen X and Y (many of whom did not get tatoos or weird piercings) and a statement that conflicts with your earlier statement that:


So which is it? Is it possible that a Vato Loco can become a CEO? You seem undecided.



Well... A) I don't wear a suit to work -- all of my workplaces have been informal in dress. B) I'm actually politically moderate, a registered Democrat (voted for Obama), pro-drug legalization, pro-gay marriage and gay rights (but heterosexual). You seem to be making your own assumptions about people who wear suits or work corporate jobs.



I'm married to a former illegal alien (who is mixed hispanic/black/european descent), and all of my girlfriends previous to her were minority as well (I'm Caucasian, btw). Seems pretty accepting of diversity to me. I also have had friends who have spanned the social spectrum, from "vatos locos" to upper middle class people in the Valley. This seems broader than your stated experiences at this point. So who accepts diversity and walks the talk?

Diversity doesn't mean accepting slovenly habits, dress, or bad manners. Other cultures are just as picky about tattoos and piercings as ours are, just to different degrees. We are a melting pot, but we don't let the ingredients override the dish. We do have a mainstream culture here in the U.S., and though it does change and get influenced, don't ever think that the counterculture can be the mainstream -- nor should it be, by its very definition. If someone is trying to be "different," they can't cry foul when mainstream people of all colors, cultures, and income levels treat them as such.

Last edited by billsmithglendale on 24 Apr 2009, 12:57 pm, edited 3 times in total.

id love to know how you can recognize a 'lonely chick'

Per the conversations above, don't waste your time -- the ones you can visually spot are all crazy or want to be left alone. Find a normal chick, or she'll find you.

sits alone
looks around
face a little sad, but trying to smile

And probably has a good reason for being lonely.

I must have a good reason for being lonely too. That makes it fair.

I think it's more normal for men to be lonely or be excluded socially than women. Women are naturally more social, more likely to have friends or attract colleagues, etc. When you see one who is either having a hard time with that, or purposefully excluding herself from that, it's a warning sign, for all of the reasons we discussed at the head of this thread.

Well, I've read this thread, so I'm inclined to agree with you. However...


Not gonna happen. Normal women don't like me for who I am...

Your statement above just undermined a lot of your credibility as anyone who has had any real experiences with a broad cross-section of the public -- you seem to be speaking from an ivory tower. How can you go 42 years in life without meeting a biker or gang member? Have you ever been to a public beach?

Did I EVER ONCE SAY I NEVER MET A BIKER OR MAYBE WAS IN THE VICINITY OF A GANG MEMBER? No, i did not. I said i never met anyone with a referenced gang tattoo. If they were a member of a gang, i did not visibly see any of the recognized gang tats you mentioned. As for a biker, I know a lot of bikers, and not all of them are bad. Another paradigm in your head. Read what I write, not what you assume please.

Thanks.

Well I have to throw out the cliche'd 'what is normal' line.

People who seem normal in all respects can often be very boring anyway Toad.