First Dates - Channel 4 - Series 5 Episode 2.

[FastFreddy2]

Watched >> this << last night. (Available to watch On Demand if using the link.)

Don't really watch commercial TV, but was drawn to this because one of the "daters" was a man who wears heels. He didn't on the date, and in hindsight it may have been a wise move. Given the outcome, I probably shouldn't have watched this with Mrs Freddy. 

To those who don't know this episode, (I haven't watched any others), it is good television. It's been very well edited, and if no other episode is worth watching, this one most definitely is. It isn't serious art though .... It's entertainment. 

The downside ..... While some couples get on (and one or two might "get it on"), there is always going to be disappointment when people you have warmed to, are left disappointed at the end of the show. In many respects, the producers and researchers have done a fairly good job at matchmaking. Trouble is, some people are born to just wreck anything ..... Sadly, our man-in-heels was one of those disappointed, by some feckless idiot ... Rather like the feckless carpenter who was punching above his weight in this episode, but still did all his thinking with his trouser snake. (And deserves to stay single IMO.)

Yes, while trying to be accurate with my critique, I still have little patience for people who work too closely to their own agenda around other people. Meaning, people who want it "their way or no way". 

Enjoy the show. 

Edited January 24, 2016 by FastFreddy2

[Puffer]

I'd never heard of this programme (not really the sort of thing I usually watch) but I've just watched it.   It was well-made and seemed genuine throughout; at least the 'contestants' were polite, articulate and intelligent (unlike so many reality/fly-on-wall programmes).   What did irritate me was the universal response - even from a 44 year old - of 'I'm good' to questions such as 'How are you?' or 'Would you like ...'    [Sorry (and I'm showing my age), but that is not a correct response.]

You didn't say that the heel-wearing man (Paulo) was gay, as was his date.   I didn't expect him to be (before watching), but alas the fact that he was must surely increase the prejudice against men in heels.   His date's adverse reaction was interesting, albeit not necessarily expected, but I cannot criticise him for his views.   There was no reason for him to approve (regardless of anyone's sexuality) and his intolerance or dislike is scarcely unusual.

As for the carpenter, I'm not sure that he was more interested in sex rather than any other aspect of a relationship.   His honest closing statement that there was limited physical attraction was not necessarily indicating that he primarily wanted a sex partner.

The girl in latex made a telling remark, to the effect that men wanted her for a (fetish) party date rather than a (respectable) relationship.   

 

[FastFreddy2]

9 hours ago, Puffer said:

You didn't say that the heel-wearing man (Paulo) was gay, as was his date.   I didn't expect him to be (before watching), but alas the fact that he was must surely increase the prejudice against men in heels.   His date's adverse reaction was interesting, albeit not necessarily expected, but I cannot criticise him for his views.   There was no reason for him to approve (regardless of anyone's sexuality) and his intolerance or dislike is scarcely unusual.

Thanks for watching. I might not have bothered either, but 'a friend' had seen the shows preview and suggested I watch, and I'm pleased I did.

I had purposely omitted the sexuality of the 'first date' couple that involved a man wearing heels, because I (and I do mean me - I'm not speaking for everyone) didn't feel it was pertinent except for an one particular issue that I will discuss further. (In my soapbox moment.) What got my goat, so to speak, was the initial response to the fella who said he liked to wear high heels. As a comparison, a girl turning up in 6 inch heels and a rubber dress, no problem. (Does 100% fetish outfit get any more less likely on a first date?) A man says "I wear a heel" and Armageddon has been declared. 

So, onto my soapbox .... 

Being gay in the UK, is an acceptable status to many of us here in the UK, but equally to some, it is not. In fact I would question "acceptability" has even reached 50% of the populace. Further, it isn't 'normal' or 'average' in any sense. It's still unusual. In some places in the world, being gay gets you killed, and I don't just mean the Middle East. Being gay puts you in a minority, and often, in a repressed or suppressive environment. With all these unpleasant things in mind, you would think a gay man would be capable of showing some empathy towards someone (gay or otherwise) who had left their home country because they felt persecuted? No. Without a seconds thought, 'Dilbert' says "That's weird." And when he sees the hurt in his date's eyes, he recants and says "No, I mean unusual." Then swiftly follows it up with "I could never walk down the street with a man wearing heels." Could he be more of a bigot? No wonder he's single.... Hence the heel wearer saying 'Time to get the bill.' Any further discussion would have been a waste.   

 

9 hours ago, Puffer said:

As for the carpenter, I'm not sure that he was more interested in sex rather than any other aspect of a relationship.   His honest closing statement that there was limited physical attraction was not necessarily indicating that he primarily wanted a sex partner.

We weren't privy to the whole feedback, but she did say he was no different to the 20+ year olds who had asked her out, in that their main interest was sex and she had hoped it would be different with a more 'mature' man.

While quite a shallow attitude on my part, she was an 8, him barely a 6. He was punching well above his weight getting a date with a looker like her. (And he turned up late!) If they had gone out on a second date, people would have wondered what she saw in such a man? Perhaps (mistakenly) thinking he had a great sense of humour, and told a good joke. I found him a bore, and very rough around the edges. He treated the date like a job interview. What he missed was her limited ability to flirt. Her repeatedly touching her glasses, was her signal she was having a good-ish time. Frankly, with her intellect confronting a 'farmer', I'm surprised they got to dessert. He another one; "That's awkward" when she left to shed a tear. They'd eaten a meal together, and he had NO IDEA how she felt. No wonder his wife had kicked him into touch.  

 

As for the "I'm good", it's on a par with "Have a great day" ... Banal and usually BS. I don't know (nor have known) anyone who could put their hand on their heart and say "I'm truly happy." It's human nature surely, to enjoy being unhappy? 

 

[Puffer]

Well said, Freddy!   I agree with your analysis and comment on almost all points.  

I think you are right about acceptability of homosexuality being far from universal in the UK - I would put the considered 'tolerance level' at well below 50% - and it is only the fear of being considered a bigot or non-PC that stops many from expressing some sort of anti view, however mild.   Many would however dispute your reference to it not being 'normal', as that is exactly what they consider it to be - or want it to be.   I think you meant 'conventional' or 'commonplace'; both those terms are more apt.   (And 'average' is not an exact term either; 'typical' would be better.   The average man has 1.99999 legs; the typical man has 2!)   Yes, one might well expect 'Dilbert' to be more understanding of his date's 'preferences' - and Paulo's rejoinder about the somewhat effeminate sparkly jacket (Dorothy Perkins?) was perfectly fair, but unfortunately not taken on board. 

As to the carpenter, I had missed the comparison to younger sex-seekers.   Yes, he was rather rough-and-ready (although his country accent was a mitigating factor) and certainly insensitive, but that (rather than any overtly predatory ideas) may have been his downfall.   She was likeable and quite pretty; he was awkward and rather blunt - they were clearly unsuited even if he failed to spot it sooner.

My point about 'I'm good' is not that it is (alas) banal or formulaic but that it is grammatically wrong.   If I ask (however superficially) about someone's health/wellbeing, I expect an answer (banal or not) such as 'I'm fine/OK/all right/well'.    If I ask about someone's conduct, then (and only then) 'I'm good' is an acceptable answer.   The 'How are you - I'm good' exchange is ignorant - and would have got me a reprimand (if not a slap) at junior school if I'd responded that way.

[FastFreddy2]

Regarding normal vs typical, I will agree "typical" may be ever slightly more apt. However, I would still offer 'normal' as being an adjective used by the greater number who might be less inclined to accept homosexuality in any guise. Thing is, I accept it's not "normal" (nor typical) for a man like me to wear a heel. While a gay man or woman might offer their sexuality as "normal" to them, the world doesn't benchmark itself on individuals, but on "the mass". Either way, that group is still a minority, and one often subject to various types of persecution/non-acceptance, and Dilbert should have been more sensitive to this than he was. Hence my lack of surprise he remains single.  (Man's greatest asset in a relationship IMO, empathy for ones partner. Understanding ~ and caring about them. )

Good call on the sparkly jacket BTW!  One wonders if Dilbert's IQ reaches double figures? 

 

Potentially the banal "good", might be grammatically correct surely, even if spoken as short-hand?

"How are you?"

"I'm (a) good (boy) thanks."

Just a thought....     

[Puffer]

How are you, Freddy?   (Don't answer that - yet.)

You have, I think, misread my last post.   I did not suggest that 'normal' and 'typical' were terms in mutual opposition; I was contrasting 'normal' with 'conventional' etc and (separately) 'average' with 'typical'.

I agree that a significant majority of the population (including me) - in other words, 'typical' citizens - would not regard homosexual conduct as 'normal', although its practitioners would clearly think it was, by their standards.   But even the adherents would, if honest, agree that their conduct was neither conventional nor commonplace, numerically speaking.   That is why I suggested that the term 'normal' is somewhat emotive and sensitive and perhaps best avoided.

One could apply the same terminology to male heel wearers, the reality (which you and I are honest enough to admit) being that it is not 'normal' male conduct, by mass standards.

I cannot agree with your analysis of 'I'm good'.   A question such as 'How are you?' must call for an answer relating to health or wellbeing, not 'conduct'.   'I'm a good boy' implies 'good conduct', not 'good health' - but 'My health is good' (as distinct from 'I'm good') would be an acceptable and grammatical answer.   Contrariwise, if the question is 'How are you behaving?', the answer should be along the lines of 'I'm good', (not 'I'm well').   In any event, how often do strangers ask after conduct rather than notional health in a conventional, if somewhat banal, greeting?   And, for that matter, who is really interested in the health of another unless there is already some relationship?

[FastFreddy2]

14 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Potentially the banal "good", might be grammatically correct surely, even if spoken as short-hand?

"How are you?"

"I'm (a) good (boy) thanks."

Just a thought....     <<===== Humour!

 

4 hours ago, Puffer said:

I cannot agree with your analysis of 'I'm good'.   A question such as 'How are you?' must call for an answer relating to health or wellbeing, not 'conduct'.   'I'm a good boy' implies 'good conduct', not 'good health' - but 'My health is good' (as distinct from 'I'm good') would be an acceptable and grammatical answer.   Contrariwise, if the question is 'How are you behaving?', the answer should be along the lines of 'I'm good', (not 'I'm well').   In any event, how often do strangers ask after conduct rather than notional health in a conventional, if somewhat banal, greeting?   And, for that matter, who is really interested in the health of another unless there is already some relationship?

 

I think one of us has a sense of humour, wasted on the other.   That or my sense of irony, is just me being stupid? 

 

Anyway, the question wasn't specific.

"How are you?"

"I'm green. Didn't you notice?" Perfectly acceptable. 

 

I don't think 'normal' or 'typical' are opposed, nor that they were suggested by your good self as being opposed? The two words, (in my mind) are like red and scarlet.  Typical is a better word usually as it is less subjective, and in these circumstances would be less offensive. But when describing how you expect character to form in children, you would describe it as 'normally', not typically. When describing their achievements, you might expect 'average', not typical.

In any case my point was: being gay isn't readily accepted by the majority as: 'normal' nor ' average' nor 'typical'.  

Edited January 26, 2016 by FastFreddy2

[Puffer]

If I missed the intentional humour (because some of those emoticons are not always noticed or properly understood), then mea culpa.   I interpreted your remarks at face value; sorry.

Typical and average are sometimes readily interchangeable, especially in informal conversation.   But 'average' is best confined to those situations which have an arithmetic element, as your good example of children's achievements illustrates: a measurement of achievement (e.g. exam marks) is readily averaged for a group and can be compared with any one of its members.   The 'typical' child, on the other hand, achieves rather less than he is truly capable of, but not in an obviously measurable manner.   And the gay person's conduct can scarcely be described as (or accepted as) 'average' because again it is essentially qualitative, not quantitative (so not truly measurable) - unless one is homing-in on the number of specific acts carried out by one of a group over a specific period, e.g. 'How often does a gay man sleep with another?'.   (Reminds me of Basil Fawlty and his confused conversation with the psychiatrist, who asked him how often he and Sybil took a holiday.   Believing he was being asked about their sex life, but reluctant to commit himself, Basil answered 'About average'.   But the 'average', whether about sex or holidays, would be fairly meaningless anyway as the (arithmetic) average is so easily skewed by the extreme results in a group, e.g. one person taking a forty week break whilst most others take a 'typical' two or three.)

[FastFreddy2]

4 hours ago, Puffer said:

Typical and average are sometimes readily interchangeable, especially in informal conversation. 

You are preaching to the converted. 

That's a seriously 'nerdy' recollection about Basil Fawlty. Assuming you haven't done it already, were you to appear on Mastermind, I doubt we'd need two guesses for your specialist subject. 

[Puffer]

7 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

You are preaching to the converted. 

That's a seriously 'nerdy' recollection about Basil Fawlty. Assuming you haven't done it already, were you to appear on Mastermind, I doubt we'd need two guesses for your specialist subject. 

There was a recent TV programme (featuring comments from John Cleese and other cast members) which showed lots of clips of the best or most memorable scenes from the various episodes of Fawlty Towers.   The bit I mentioned was one of them.   I'm sure it will be repeated; it's well worth watching.   But, seriously, how can one easily forget those magic moments from such a splendid series?   

'There's enough material there for a whole conference' - as the psychiatrist also said, summing-up Basil's conduct.

[FastFreddy2]

Having seen the programme "recently", doesn't stop it being 'nerdy'.    

 

If I spot it, I'll watch it. 

[Puffer]

10 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Having seen the programme "recently", doesn't stop it being 'nerdy'.    

...

Maybe not - but I'm happy to be considered a nerd!

I didn't answer your earlier question about Mastermind.   No, I've not been on it (nor am likely to be) but I don't think Fawlty Towers would be my subject if I was - although it is quite a good, self-contained subject to mug-up on.   I have a couple of more complex and more serious subjects in mind as theoretical choices.   (I recall that a contestant was not allowed to have as his specialist subject 'Routes to anywhere in England from Letchworth' (or somesuch) - that would have been exciting to watch!)

[FastFreddy2]

Since all episodes of this are available, I have been trying to watch every programme, episode by episode in chronological order. Tonight I watched Series 2 Episode 6, "The night of the ladies in heels". >> Here << 

I have to say, how Series 1 generated a Series 2, I have no idea. The first series was like car-crash TV, and the second series so far, not much better. I guess that by the time Series 5 comes along (my first look) the show had become more professional, and more entertaining. The programme is up to Series 8 Episode 8. There have been a good number of 'specials' too, so the formula is working.