||[Mar. 9th, 2004|01:57 am]
wasting time on orkut (i.e. like Friendster, but with a less obvious name) tonight, I rediscovered that you can (anonymously) rate your pals as to whether they are "cool" (an ice cube) "sexy" (a heart) and/or "trustworthy" (a smiley). they call these ratings "karma". You don't know how many of your listed pals have bothered to vote, or if they ranked you 0-3. generally, anyone that seems to have any points at all has them evenly distributed: anyone 60% sexy is usually about 50-60% cool. BUT...|
Looking at one of my single female pals, I find she has 7 "trusty" points, 20 "cool" points, and 16 "sexy" points, whereas one of my married female pals is 14 trusty/14cool/7 sexy. randomly clicking friends of friends, I notice single people seem to get more "sexy" points and married/partnered people tend to get more "trusty" points, maybe because it seems less creepy to rate a person who isn't on the market as "trusty" than "sexy", especially since there isn't an option for "sexy but with an armed boyfriend that will beat me up if he finds out I've been rating you 3 hearts".
So what is it about "sexy" that seems contrary to "trustworthy"? I think I would rate the trustworthiness of pals according to where they fall on the "returns books they borrowed from me" to "would they drive me to the hospital at 2am if I had the stomach flu?" scale. I like to think anyone I'd find "sexy" enough to actually pursue would at least be book-returning trustworthy, and hopefully up to "will drive me to the hospital after work around 6pm", if they don't meet the 2am holy grail. I can drool over people who are sexy but not to be trusted (me and Alex used to have a joke about how Bryan Ferry of Roxy Music had the persona of a man who would sweep you off your feet, make love to you all night, and leave a rose on your pillow as you slept, as he snuck out the door with your VCR), but in real life, sexy and "somewhat concerned about my well-being" go hand-in-hand.
I'm not exactly intepreting these orkut points to mean "I'd do him, but not loan him a CD", but if that's the case, that's a
pretty fascinating (and grim) view of what it means to call these people in our social networks our "friends."
also, now that I'm on the topic, there are already at least 3 of these damn things. nobody create any more of them unless you have some major improvement to contribute, because I know I'm not the only one tired of entering profiles on the damn things after getting an "invite" from a friend.
I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the safety of not expressing one's attraction to someone who is "committed/married" (though when you're in a relationship, it's probably safer to mention your attraction to "taken" people to one's partner...though these comments usually are made in private.)I'm not exactly intepreting these orkut points to mean "I'd do him, but not loan him a CD", but if that's the case, that's a pretty fascinating (and grim) view of what it means to call these people in our social networks our "friends."
Heh heh...it truly seemed like that kind of attitude was prevalent on Friendster for a while--"I'll have sex with you, but jeez...there's no way I'm going to answer an email that's longer than a page." It troubled me for a while, but now I've decided that there's not anything intrinsically wrong with that attitude. In fact, it just may be the wave of the future
! :)there are already at least 3 of these damn things. nobody create any more of them unless you have some major improvement to contribute
Amen. You are welcome to a position at the Department of Redundancy Dept. in my new galactic government!!!
All my life I have been trying to tell people this about software in general, including blogware
Sorry to say, but there is yet another one of these things out there. Along with Friendster, Tribe and Orkut, there is now MyPlace.com. I signed up on Friendster, than Tribe, but had to stop there...well, unless someone tells me Orkut or MyPlace actually is better than Tribe, which is quite possible.
Agreed, too many of these things. And frankly, I don't like the idea of rating people.
Science News has reported studies that evaluated men's and women's attitude towards casual (one night stand) and committed partnerships. Basically, men had radically different choices for casual vs. committed relations; women's choices were much closer. Sorry, I read this a couple years ago, and don't remember the fine details.
Maybe that's what you're seeing here. Is this clear?
I haven't signed up for any of those things. Sorry.
sexy + trutworthy = hott
sexy + i don't know about you = eye-candy
sexy + untrustworthy = i thought you were *sexy*? when?
anyway, most of the stuff which is sexy isn't immediately visible anyway: smart, non-standard, sweet, sharp, imaginative,expressive, self-contained - all sexy.