Hitting On Someone in Social Media: Know Your Platform

I should really start a relationship series. It would go something like: How Not to Date in Social Media

Maybe this is the first installment of that...

The overall theme, of which I've blogged about before, is that guys, for whatever reason are unable to construct the time-honored tradition of, "Hey, wanna go out? I know this great Cuban place to take you for dinner," or "This hot new movie is opening this weekend. Wanna go?" Complete and utter failure on that regard. Perhaps all that is too much of a commitment, and they just want sex. Fine. Just cross me off your list now then.

Here's what I've been getting a lot of lately: "Wanna chat?" or, if they feel really close, "Hey, I wanna chat with you sometime."

First of all, I spent most of the 90s and a good part of the 2000s chatting. I've seen the good sides of chat, and the horrific sides of chat (that being when one guy wanted to "chat" with me while he watched a porno in the background, and showed me said nonsense on his videocam). Chatting, for most guys these days, is the precursor to "sexting." And it doesn't take long to get from one to the next.

Which is why, these days, I only "chat" with friends and family. SELECT friends and family. They had to beg me, in fact, to turn on my FB chat. I used to chat with hundreds, and be open to the whole world, but not these days.

Here's the other thing, though. FB chat (which turns into emails of the person you're chatting with) isn't strictly old-school chat, but it functions as such sometimes. IN NO CIRCUMSTANCE, however, is Twitter to be used as "chat."

Do people not realize this?

Every Tweet you type goes out to your ENTIRE TWITTER FEED. Every one I type back goes out to MY ENTIRE TWITTER FEED, which is close to 2000 people. I don't want to bore 2000 people with this convo: "What's up?"
"Not much. You?"
"Not much either."

SERIOUSLY?

First of all, I am APPALLED at your social gaffe, to not realize this collossal social blunder you are committing here.

And even taking this convo to DMs, which is proper social etiquette, is wrong on a personal level, because in any forum, I'm bored silly by this convo.

"We should chat more," he says. Really? You sure aren't convincing me of that.

Not to mention that because you use Twitter as your own personal "chat" stream, I've seen you hitting on other girls this way. Very uninteresting.

Here's how it works for me.

For the most part, I use Twitter to hear and talk to the masses of people on the Earth. I'm most open to following new people on Twitter, just to hear their voice, and the kinds of things they say.

When I've listened to them awhile, if what I've been reading is pleasing, I will accept a friend request on Facebook. But even there, I get the random, "Let's chat," in email.

This guy, for example. "I'd like to get to know you."

Mind you, my feed on FB, as my friends will tell you, is pretty much Michelle as an open book. There are all kinds of things that I'm posting, which are of interest to me, that you could comment on. We could see if we have similar interests. That's how I get to know YOU.

No. He doesn't do that. He "wants to chat." Tells me, in English and Spanish, that I'm "so beautiful." Not much more than that. As if I'm so gullible that hearing someone call me beautiful is going to make me trip into their arms. Um, no.

Wow me. Impress me. Stun me with your witticisms. Or, for heaven's sake, ASK ME OUT.

Why is that so difficult for boys today?

As for both of the two in this (true life) story, I've unfollowed/unfriended them. Life's too short.

Oh, and another thing: Don't call me "dear." It's demeaning.

And don't describe intimate sexual things you want to do to me if you haven't even KISSED ME. Seriously, people. Have some decorum.

**************************************************

UPDATE: As I went to unfriend the FB guy, I read that his profile just went from "married" to "single." So all these months, when he's been trying to initiate chat with me, he was MARRIED anyway. *eyeroll*

************************************************

On the new TV genre staple: Families

What else is there to churn out in TV that's reliable, and constantly has stories? We've done crime procedurals to death. Medicine/doctor shows have had their day. Lawyers? Yawn. Oh, I know! Families!

There's something everyone can relate to. To me, it was annoying enough when Brothers & Sisters brought us too many family members, all yammering and in each other's business, constantly gossiping on the phone with each other. But there were some situations that Brothers & Sisters did well. And it is still on the air, after all.

So let's trot out that formula. 

In catching up with potential Emmy contenders, I've just sat down with two of the talked-about shows: one comedy, one drama; both about families. Maybe I was spoiled because I watched the good one first.

"Modern Family," on ABC, is a genuinely funny comedy about a typical (by today's America standards) family. The gay son, the sex-crazed daughter, the father who marries an insanely hot younger woman (what is it with men in Hollywood constantly presenting this stereotype? This doesn't happen in middle America, you know...). But I digress.

"Modern Family" (though about families, and I admit, the topic of families kinda makes me wanna throw up) has a lot of funny lines and situations. Julie Bowen, way better here than in her last ABC show ("Boston Legal") is warm and you wanna know her story. Jesse Tyler Ferguson, as her brother, is also warm and kind.

The pilot of this show made me want to see more. Ed O'Neill is the penultimate father after his long "Married with Children" run, and they had to work hard to make such a truly sexy man (IRL) look so old and frumpy for this show.

The other family show, the NBC drama "Parenthood," has an absolutely stellar cast. This is why I managed to TiVo nearly every show this season, telling myself it just had to be good. Craig T. Nelson is their father. In fact, nearly everyone in this show you've seen somewhere else on TV. For Monica Potter, it's a good thing you probably don't remember her from "Boston Legal."

For others, it's not so good. After all, how can anyone ever wipe away Nate Fisher or Lorelei Gilmore from our minds when watching Peter Krause and Lauren Graham, respectively? It's really truly hard to see Lauren parenting these two kids, when you know she should be off somewhere taking care of Rory. And we all know Nate's dead.

That said--and for me, it still hangs over every frame of this show so far--it's really great to have them both back in our living rooms, where they belong. And if it can't be Rory, Mae Whitman is feisty and compelling enough to want to watch what she does as Lorelei...AHEM, SARAH's daughter.

But, dear God, the family around the dinner table where everyone is talking at once dynamic is so played out. I'm so over it. It's bad enough we have to listen to that crap in our real lives. I don't wanna see it in my art.

I was just about ready to give up on this show, when Lauren Graham has a date (with the ubiquitous Mike O'Malley). And there, the first moments of poignancy that tug at your heartstrings. Peter Krause has a few of them later in the pilot episode too.

So, my jury is still out on this show. At least the living room scene where the brothers and sisters are yammering at each other played better than any episode of Brothers and Sisters I've ever seen. You felt the natural rapport amongst them, and the love. It was really beautiful.

Although I hate to say it, I'm going to be giving both of these shows more chances. Families. Who knew?

**************************************************************