Lee Flier

Originally posted by madjack The proper answer to that question is, "Oh, he's probably out in back screwing some groupie!" BWAAAHH!! That's awesome!

Originally posted by MrKnobs The problem is, the part of our brain that attraction takes place in is much older and more primitive than the more recent part of our brain that allows abstract thought. This has created conflict between our genetic disposition to seek out females with positive child bearing features (ample breasts, wide hips, healthy, etc) and faces that look similar to our own (but not too similar) vs. good judgement and consideration of non-physical characteristics such as intelligence, loyalty, good nature, etc. Overlay this with the not-so-subliminal messages from advertising, TV, movies, and society in general and you can understand why everyone is a mess to some degree. Oh, I don't disagree with any of that. It's just sad. I think a lot of effort needs to be made to reject those messages but not many people even know to put the effort in. Similarly, a woman's attraction is programmed to select the best father for her (potential) children. Hers' is more complicated than the male's strategy, since she must not only mate with the best physical specimens but also keep one around as protection for her children. Thus, women are attracted to good looks and bad boys but also stability and a good provider. Ideally, they would find this all in one person, some sort of powerful crown prince among men with dashing good looks who regularly dispenses high seminal volume while exhibiting protective behavior toward the woman and her children. Unfortunately, this idealized man only exists in cheesy romance novels, which are sold by the metric ton each and every day to lonely housewives, spinsters, adolescents, attractive female forum moderators, and the occasional crafty man such as myself who reads them to add to his knowledge base about the female psyche. Heh... well none have been sold to me, I don't read that crap. And I wouldn't give it too much weight in terms of thinking it says anything about the female psyche. It only says something about the psyches of females who read romance novels.

Originally posted by FlogRock Or, to put it differently: women don't spend a lot of time on looks because they're so shallow, it's because a lot of men have a very shallow taste in women, where only looks matter... Well, I tend toward being very fond of men, so I didn't quite want to put it that way, but yeah. I guess that's true. And that can also be explained. For men it's more important to have a young (=good-looking) partner in order to be 'successful' from an evolutionary viewpoint... Well you'd think that we'd be capable of thinking beyond caveman level by this point! And yes that applies equally to women who only want macho bad-boy guys. By not learning to look past our baser instincts we no doubt overlook a lot of people who might actually be the one that would truly make us happiest.

Originally posted by 44deluxe I agree about the initial attracting of a mate, traditionally the succesful man gets the beautiful woman. But is the beautiful woman really going to make the successful man most happy as a mate? And vice versa? Most people just assume so, and don't think about it any further. But, I think it's also true though AFTER that. My wife's appearance is still very important to her (not in a fussy way, but more than I care about my appearance). I think most women feel (a lot of times through early conditioning) that if their looks go, so will their man's desire for them. And I've actually seen that happen often enough too... a guy who's been married for 20 years and his wife has gained a few pounds or stops caring so much about doing her makeup right or whatever, and suddenly the guy doesn't want to have sex with her anymore and/or starts lusting after 20 year olds. I know lots of women who don't feel the same, but there must be some heavy duty genetic pull to act in the ways we do. I don't think the standard for beauty is genetic - half the crap that women use to supposedly enhance our appearance didn't even exist until recently. The media has created a lot of it, and even 20 years ago the emphasis on looks above all else didn't seem to be as strong as it is now. Most people have always gravitated more toward good lookers, but would usually realize at some point that other things were more important in the big picture. Now it doesn't seem that way for many.

Originally posted by brikus well, except if they have big b( o )( o )bies. For a lot of women, those cost lots of money too.

Originally posted by 44deluxe I liked the bit about how men want to do well but women want to look good. I know how bad that could sound but I agree. Well I wonder if there's a chicken-or-egg thing at play there. Women who don't spend a lot of time and money on their looks, and I mean a LOT, don't ordinarily get asked out much.

Originally posted by MrKnobs I think the folks you guys are talking about are more aptly called "fans," which is short for fanatics. Or your "following." I dunno, there's a difference though between the fan who comes out to your local shows, and the one who drives hundreds of miles to see your band, or volunteers to go around putting up posters, or run your fan club or whatever. Or collects every friggin thing you do and asks for MP3's of outtakes or the band farting in the studio, etc. I think groupie, as popularly understood, is limited to females and definitely includes "romantic" intent, if not actualization. I use the word "romantic" not to mince words, but because I've noticed that there is a spectrum of groupies ranging from the infamous "plaster casters" of old to what I'd call "emo groupies" who are after the relationship but not the sex. Yeah, I'd say that's how most people use the term. And some of them don't seem to differentiate between the "emo groupie" and the plaster-caster variety either. But I always thought it was a bit unfair to refer to only females as groupies, and to assume that they all just wanted to sleep with the band, when I've seen plenty of fanatical male followers of bands. They just tend to be quieter about it than the women. And yes, some of them get made fun of and accused of having a secret gay crush on the band or whatever... Bottom line is I think lots of people romanticize bands, including the people IN the bands. And we probably ought to have a word for that and the word ought to have a fairly favorable connotation, because I don't think there's a damned thing wrong with that. If it brings magic to people's lives, it's all good. And if people are afraid to admit that romanticizing a band brings magic to their lives, because they're afraid they'll be accused of being a psycho or a slut or whatever, that sucks.

Originally posted by squealie To me, a groupie is the chick who will drive 4 hours to come see a show, even when she has to work the next day. All the other stuff can be filed under BandSlut, which may or may not be the same chick. Yeah I would agree. And guys can be groupies too. When I was younger I used to really enjoy taking a road trip to go see a favorite band. And I know guys who will do that too. It has nothing to do with wanting to sleep with anybody in the band, although certainly a groupie could also be a "bandslut" it's not an inherent part of the job.

Originally posted by MrKnobs And I agree with what you said about the nature of art. I'm sure you've heard the old saying, "A good song tells the world something about yourself you'd rather they didn't know. A GREAT song tells the world something about yourself you'd rather not know yourself." We see it advertised that Mr. Grand will deliver an oration on the Fourth of July, and Mr. Hand before the Mechanics' Association, and we do not go thither, because we know that these gentlemen will not communicate their own character and experience to the company. If we had reason to expect such a confidence we should go through all inconvenience and opposition. The sick would be carried in litters. But a public oration is an escapade, a non-committal, an apology, a gag, and not a communication, not a speech, not a man. ... The effect of any writing on the public mind is mathematically measurable by its depth of thought. How much water does it draw? If it awaken you to think, if it lift you from your feet with the great voice of eloquence, then the effect is to be wide, slow, permanent, over the minds of men; if the pages instruct you not, they will die like flies in the hour. The way to speak and write what shall not go out of fashion is to speak and write sincerely. The argument which has not power to reach my own practice, I may well doubt will fail to reach yours. But take Sidney's maxim:--"Look in thy heart, and write." He that writes to himself writes to an eternal public. That statement only is fit to be made public which you have come at in attempting to satisfy your own curiosity. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson Well, this just goes to show you that you never know what will happen in life - you might even end up quoting Emerson in a thread about groupies. But thanks for sticking around, and yes I hope the story will encourage even more folks to do so - there are definitely some really cool people here!

Terry, I finally found some time to give your story the attention it deserves, and just wanted to say: many thanks for sharing it here. As someone who does on occasion get paid to write, I'd like to add my kudos to your writing skill - don't sell yourself short, you really can write. But when I say that I don't only mean that you have a way with words (although you certainly do). The real talent lies in your willingness to be brutally honest with yourself and have the cajones to share the fruits of your brutal honesty with anyone who cares to read it. That's what a real artist does, IMO. Anyway, I hope it was as therapeutic for you as it was riveting for the rest of us. Any time you feel like spilling your guts in the future, please do!

Originally posted by riffdaddy If you're married but still have a story on which to elaborate, your gentleman status is seriously questionable. Not necessarily. Some gentlemen don't like to talk about their PAST after they get married. I hope that's what he meant.

Good call THX.