stories:
Table Manners
 |
More than Just Arm CandyHow to stop a friend from salting your game |
Dear Helena,
I’m a guy, and I’ve got a couple of female friends I’ve known for a long time, and whom I adore. There’s a pattern which forms, though, that I’m having trouble dealing with: They’re “blocking” me at parties.
I’ve gone along as “arm candy” on a couple of office holiday parties, and that’s all well and good; I do my duty as stand-in boyfriend and make sure that they’re having a good time. But there are other times when we’re out at a social function or bar, and I’ll realize that my female friend is holding my arm superclose, or hovering in my personal space rather much. Without listing it all out, it’s basically body language that screams, “Couple!”
I like them and don’t want to be rude or spurn their affection, but we’re both single and ostensibly “looking,” and I feel like my game is getting salted. Am I out of line? Is there a clever way for me to assert my singlehood for whatever ladies might be watching, without stepping on my friends’ toes? Thanks! —Incomplete Pass
Dear Incomplete Pass,
It’s nice to be physically affectionate with your friends, but when you’re out at bars, cocktail parties, and the like, it can send an unintended message. If your female friend clings to you even in social situations, she might be using you as a surrogate boyfriend. In other words, you give her physical affection and emotional intimacy, without any of the challenges of a romantic relationship. So when you tell her to stop, you’ll hurt her feelings. It’s like a surrogate breakup.
Soften the blow with flattery: “I feel like I’m not getting any action because other women assume I’m with you, and since you’re always the hottest woman there, they know they can’t compete.”
But don’t ask your female friend to stay clear of you altogether. If she plays it right, she could actually help you meet other women when you go out to bars and parties. Your female friend gives you social validation in their eyes. A man with a gal pal is obviously interested in women for more than just sex.
Your friend can do more than passively support you. She can act as your “wingwoman,” approaching other women on your behalf. Women are often more receptive to being approached by one of their own. If a guy approaches, they may assume he’s trying to hit on them and put up their guard.
The wingwoman strategy is so effective that you can hire professionals to do it. Wingwomen.com offers helpful ladies for hire at $75 an hour in the New York area (it will be available in Las Vegas in May). With the assistance of founder Shane Forbes, I compiled a checklist of actions a good wingwoman should perform. Caroline Paul, a San Francisco writer who frequently acts as wingwoman, also contributed.
Approach. Forbes suggests your wingwoman can comment on “the long line for the bathroom or on the drinks or the weather or what they’re wearing.” These gambits may seem banal. But all the wingwoman has to do is break the ice. You’re the one who has to impress.
Promote. Your wingwoman should mention your mastery of paella, your rock climber’s abs, or whatever else you have to recommend you. Paul points out: “It’s a way for the guy to share his good points without it looking like he’s boasting.”
Investigate. If you ask if the woman has a boyfriend, it could seem creepy. But as Paul points out, “It’s pretty innocuous when a woman asks, ‘Are you here with your boyfriend?’”
Distance. The wingwoman should indicate your relationship with her is platonic, but subtly. “We’ve been friends since we met in college” is better than “He’s single, you know.”
Evaporate. The wingwoman isn’t there to find a new friend herself. Once the conversation is flowing, she should melt away.
After that, it’s up to you. A wingwoman can only make the first 10 or 15 minutes of meeting easier. She can’t close the deal. Whatever happens, you owe your wingwoman a couple of drinks. It’s a lot cheaper than $75.
Table Manners appears every Wednesday. Have a Table Manners question? Email Helena.
Interesting, but what does this have to do with chow?
Oh geez, another dating column. This is a food site Helena. And you were doing so well for a while there.
I fail to understand why this is here.
If it was a post, it would likely be removed for being off topic.
She did mention salt in the sub-title!
I agree; Chow is getting too far off-base.
Agreed on off-topic items being pulled. We have two sets of rules.
I sometimes think management/administrators look at the meter and say, "let's leave that in to boost our numbers and advertising dollars" or "we need more inane filler to satisfy everyone".
"She did mention salt in the sub-title! "
And game, don't forget the game. Hmm, salted game - we're well on the way to some decent jerky here!
The first response here was MY first response too.... what does this have to do with chow, food, dinner parties, anything??
Well, for something off-topic we sure are having some fun with it aren't we? Reminds me of when my Lab drags up the remains of a dead animal and has fun playing with it.
I have expressed my displeasure with CH admin. that they let frivilous fluff and best/worst/scariest/dumbest threads abound when it is clearly in their posting etiquite that such subjects are not permitted. They say they are evaluating the leniency and slackening of enforcement. It's been a while now and I think they should change their rules if all this nonsense is going to be on the site on a regular basis. I am not in favor of it and would like to see the site a little purer, even if their revenue stream took a small hit. I think of it as "dumbing down" the subject we all come here for. On the other side of the coin those dumb threads sure do get a lot of attention and posts; sometimes hundreds...Perhaps there needs to be a new "Food Bloopers" site for such silly discussions.
Then there is the fact that CH can and does (somewhat arbitrarily) zap you for the slightest infraction.
I'm trying to think that maybe this has something to do with "Table Manners," but it is admittedly a stretch. Maybe "Bar Manners"? Anyway, from my single days, whenever I or my friends were in a situation like this, we agreed beforehand to give each other a signal if someone strikes our fancy, so we'll know when to back off. But there were times when having an "arm candy" was great b/c it discouraged lots of undesirables.
Come now, plenty of chow mentions in this: "candy”, "salt", "game", "wings", "ice", "paella"...
Agreed, this is more like sub-Julia Allison advice column fare. Surely the full universe of table manner issues hasn't been exhausted yet, and this site doesn't need to address things like "How soon after our date should I call for a second one?" or "How can I tell if she's into me?".
Does food enter into this somehow?
Helena, if you're going to turn your column into an advertisment, please do it with a little more subtlety.
I agree with all of the above. However since I'm here I will share my experience. Don't hang out with women you have no intention of marrying. Because you are throwing salt in your own game. And you can't blame them for being attracted to you and following their instincts. No amount of talk will solve the problem. And here. When you do find the woman of your dreams she will not like you hanging out with them anyway. Because she will not trust them for good reason. Enough said.
Can Chowhound get more hypocritical? I can spend 15 minutes posting something entirely food-related that doesn't violate any of the guidelines and still have it deleted, sometimes without explanation, and Helena's allowed to churn out whatever she likes? Let's see some consistency already.
This is Chow, not Chowhound. It's been clearly established that Helena will write about and answer letters about social issues that sometimes only tangentially have to do with food.
As for the letter writer: try being honest and direct, at least then you'll have been honest and direct even if feelings get hurt.
Uhmm, Perhaps I'm dense? I see that sometimes I go to "Chow" and mostly I am on "Chowhound" and I can't see any difference....at all. Even the replies to this article are the same. OK, I know the name is different.
What's the difference?
The underpinning technology appears to be the same (I don't actually know that, but it looks similar graphically and operates similarly from a user perspective). The difference is that Chow is not subject to the same rules about "on/off-topic" as Chowhoud boards are. Chow isn't message boards, its content determined by Chow editors.
Still, that's interesting. One would think a site called "Chow" would be even more foodcentric than "Chowhound," which might more conceivably aim to cover all the interests a person who answers to the name might have (assuming they extend beyond food. Mine don't, much).
Not to say I understand it all or even agree with what CNET is doing with these "two" sites, that are joined at the hip, but I think I have gained some insight today through surfing the internet. It's too bad staff does not chime in and express the party line more clearly... or say, "Warning, there is immature BS in this area that has little to do with food". BTW, they share the same staff.
Chow is supposed to be the liberal, "hip", more bloggish and diversified site. More styled to appeal to 25-45 year olds with a wider range of interests beyond just a forum "talking chow". So, as Chowhound, "the food forum", they supposedly keep a tighter rein on the "boards" or food discussion forums to keep it on the subject of food. Still, this does not always happen. People still ask where to get married, as if that had anything to do with food, except that they will have a reception (and need food for that).
I have spent approximately 70% of my time on Chowhound forums. Previously, I thought it was the same site with essentially an alias. It's hard to know that you are really switching from one site to another...if you don't pay close attention to the name at the top. Some who blog significantly about food don't get it either. I want Chowhound to be about food and restaurants and not about silly, chatty topics like what food was in the biggest pile of puke your dog ever threw up? Please let this topic and similar topics stay here on CHOW!
I think this joining at the hip lends to confusion and lessens the quality of the posts on Chowhound by the incestuous association.
Now that I know there is a distinction between the navbar buttons that so seamlessly transition you from one site to the other I will be much more deliberate about where I spend my time.
I still don't have my distinctions straight. Let me clarify:
I wish the "General Chowhounding Topics" were more strictly about food (or moved off the Chowhound Board area) and that the "Not About Food" forum was not on or linked to Chowhound. I think too many non-food subjects (or forums) are getting lumped into the Chowhound board.
Scargod, I completely agree with you.
Perhaps so little comes in regarding table manners that Helena feels she must resort to other topics such as etiquette, etc?
(Although from what I've seen out there there seems to be a general lack of both).
RichardCrystal, I have often had the same thought these days -- that Helena is not receiving many (or maybe ANY) questions that actually pertain to table manners. However, I would think it would make more sense for her to think of a column to write (without questions) that does related to this site, rather than rely on questions that don't? Really, I'm sure if she thinks about it, there are lots of "little things" around which she could focus a column so it's food-related, like "gracefully eating messy/awkward/gets stuck in your teeth food in the company of others (big ribs, corn on the cob, etc.)" or "ordering the 'right' food in a business meal (e.g. no garlic, nothing that requires handling with your fingers, etc.)". This latest question doesn't even remotely have anything to do with food or drink. It might also help to one day have a column asking Chowhounders what kinds of things we'd like to see her write about (constructive for both sides). I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing something like "getting around the awkwardness of multiple place settings in a formal dinner when you don't know what fork is for what dish." I'm trying to think how she could've shifted the column question to make it food- or drink-related, but I'm at a loss. If the Chow admins aren't even regulating her column for content, then, theoretically, Helena should be able to write a column without relying on questions.
Okay, I googled Helena, and, according to her page, http://www.bay-ata.com/helena/index.php, she has a BA in English from Oxford and an MA in English from Yale. Surely, with those credentials, Helena can improve upon the quality and content of her columns, right Helena?
On this particular column, Helena is bad enough. But what about her editor? Does anyone even read her copy to make sure it pertains to what this site is about?
With those academic credentials, I hope this is not Helena's FT gig.
The Not About Food board is ripe with possibilites for topics here. In fact, there have been a couple of times when I've seen a topic debated on that board make it here. Not to say we need an exact copy between the two sections, which would be redundant, but from there, you get a pretty good idea on the topics that rouse people up.
Dear Miss Lonelyhearts.....Is it proper to feng shui the clams at a dinner party?
Give her a break folks, the title of this section is Table Manners, not CHOW. While I've been married way long enough to not even think about this topic, I don't see that it is a stretch from table manners.