Catherine Deneuve defends men's "right to hit on" women

[Harrison Hill]

"To hit on a woman" arrived in my vocabulary fairly recently,
and I'm not sure where it came from. It feels AmE, so perhaps
from a movie? It isn't a word I would expect to find in a
translation, so I'd be interested to know how it arrived from
from this French:

BBC Headline: Catherine Deneuve defends men's "right to hit
on" women.

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42630108>

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Harrison Hill
"To hit on a woman" arrived in my vocabulary fairly recently,
and I'm not sure where it came from. It feels AmE, so perhaps
from a movie? It isn't a word I would expect to find in a
translation, so I'd be interested to know how it arrived from
BBC Headline: Catherine Deneuve defends men's "right to hit
on" women.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42630108>

Looking it up I find that the
'la liberté d'importuner' was probably the original phrase. [1]
If so "right to hit on" is a very poor translation.

It is more like making advances that may be a nuisance,
or pressed too hard.

They continue with
"Le viol est un crime. Mais la drague insistante ou maladroite n'est pas
un délit, ni la galanterie une agression machiste"
which is along these lines too.

Lots of feminists fell over each other in their hurry
to denouce the treason of those 100 women.
Perhaps some feminist ill-will in translating?

Jan


Jan

[1] "Nous défendons une liberté d'importuner, indispensable à la liberté
sexuelle. Nous sommes aujourd'hui suffisamment averties pour admettre
que la pulsion sexuelle est par nature offensive et sauvage, mais nous
sommes aussi suffisamment clairvoyantes pour ne pas confondre drague
maladroite et agression sexuelle"

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Harrison Hill
"To hit on a woman" arrived in my vocabulary fairly recently,
and I'm not sure where it came from. It feels AmE, so perhaps
from a movie? It isn't a word I would expect to find in a
translation, so I'd be interested to know how it arrived from
BBC Headline: Catherine Deneuve defends men's "right to hit
on" women.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42630108>

Looking it up I find that the
'la liberté d'importuner' was probably the original phrase. [1]
If so "right to hit on" is a very poor translation.
It is more like making advances that may be a nuisance,
or pressed too hard.

That is precisely the meaning of "hit on." It has nothing to do with striking.

Post by J. J. Lodder
They continue with
"Le viol est un crime. Mais la drague insistante ou maladroite n'est pas
un délit, ni la galanterie une agression machiste"
which is along these lines too.
Lots of feminists fell over each other in their hurry
to denouce the treason of those 100 women.
Perhaps some feminist ill-will in translating?
Jan
Jan
[1] "Nous défendons une liberté d'importuner, indispensable à la liberté
sexuelle. Nous sommes aujourd'hui suffisamment averties pour admettre
que la pulsion sexuelle est par nature offensive et sauvage, mais nous
sommes aussi suffisamment clairvoyantes pour ne pas confondre drague
maladroite et agression sexuelle"

[Quinn C]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Harrison Hill
"To hit on a woman" arrived in my vocabulary fairly recently,
and I'm not sure where it came from. It feels AmE, so perhaps
from a movie? It isn't a word I would expect to find in a
translation, so I'd be interested to know how it arrived from
BBC Headline: Catherine Deneuve defends men's "right to hit
on" women.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42630108>

Looking it up I find that the
'la liberté d'importuner' was probably the original phrase. [1]
If so "right to hit on" is a very poor translation.
It is more like making advances that may be a nuisance,
or pressed too hard.

That is precisely the meaning of "hit on." It has nothing to do with striking.

Not precisely, though. Hitting on doesn't imply nuisance on it's
own. I would suggest at least "insistently hitting on". And I
won't defend that right, much less for just one gender, how passé!

The site Linguee gives as translations: annoy, inconvenience,
bother, harass, pester, hassle.

Among the examples of translation in context, I also find taunt,
disturb, interfere, hinder, and of course, importune.
<https://www.linguee.com/english-french/search?source=auto&query=importuner>

So, quite negative.

[Joseph C. Fineman]

Hitting on doesn't imply nuisance on it's own.

In 1993 I attended a gay (soc.motss) conference in Boston, and at one of
the social gatherings we were invited to stick a green or red sticker on
out badges, explained as meaning respectively "hit on me" or "don't hit
on me". That was my first acquaintance with the expression. Evidently,
in that milieu at least, it did not imply nuisance.

[Katy Jennison]

Post by Joseph C. Fineman

Hitting on doesn't imply nuisance on it's own.

In 1993 I attended a gay (soc.motss) conference in Boston, and at one of
the social gatherings we were invited to stick a green or red sticker on
out badges, explained as meaning respectively "hit on me" or "don't hit
on me". That was my first acquaintance with the expression. Evidently,
in that milieu at least, it did not imply nuisance.

An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Joseph C. Fineman

Hitting on doesn't imply nuisance on it's own.

In 1993 I attended a gay (soc.motss) conference in Boston, and at one of
the social gatherings we were invited to stick a green or red sticker on
out badges, explained as meaning respectively "hit on me" or "don't hit
on me". That was my first acquaintance with the expression. Evidently,
in that milieu at least, it did not imply nuisance.

An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.
--
Katy Jennison

the slang for it all sounds like a black thang

[Harrison Hill]

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Joseph C. Fineman

Hitting on doesn't imply nuisance on it's own.

In 1993 I attended a gay (soc.motss) conference in Boston, and at one of
the social gatherings we were invited to stick a green or red sticker on
out badges, explained as meaning respectively "hit on me" or "don't hit
on me". That was my first acquaintance with the expression. Evidently,
in that milieu at least, it did not imply nuisance.

An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Since Laura is rushing to your defence each time, perhaps
she can say how "I fancy you", and "Do you mind me chatting
you up?" are intertranslational.

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Joseph C. Fineman

Hitting on doesn't imply nuisance on it's own.

In 1993 I attended a gay (soc.motss) conference in Boston, and at one of
the social gatherings we were invited to stick a green or red sticker on
out badges, explained as meaning respectively "hit on me" or "don't hit
on me". That was my first acquaintance with the expression. Evidently,
in that milieu at least, it did not imply nuisance.

An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite.

That's double-edged, as the simple fact that he asked whether you minded
may show he thought it could be a nuisance. The polite formula associated
with "hitting on you" apparently purports to be humorous, and thus may have
been a clever red herring aimed at mitigating what was in fact a pretty
direct approach, IMHO.

Post by Katy Jennison
"Fancying" would have been the BrE equivalent at the time.
--
Katy Jennison

[Mark Brader]

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

[Quinn C]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

[the Omrud]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise "coming on
to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make advances towards",
and more forwardly, "propositioning".

To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds very
agressive and violent.

[Paul Wolff]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise "coming
on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make advances
towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds very
agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited into a
woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As that Trump
fellow described it.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:26:16 +0000, Paul Wolff

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise "coming
on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make advances
towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds very
agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited into a
woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As that Trump
fellow described it.

Your phrase - "chatting up" - could be construed as a conversation in
which the male unfavorably dominates the female. "Pulling" suggests
physically manhandling a female. We know better, though.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:26:16 +0000, Paul Wolff

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise "coming
on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make advances
towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds very
agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited into a
woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As that Trump
fellow described it.

Your phrase - "chatting up" - could be construed as a conversation in
which the male unfavorably dominates the female. "Pulling" suggests
physically manhandling a female. We know better, though.

Who mentioned "pulling"? No one in this thread.

[Paul Carmichael]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
Your phrase - "chatting up" - could be construed as a conversation in
which the male unfavorably dominates the female. "Pulling" suggests
physically manhandling a female. We know better, though.

Who mentioned "pulling"? No one in this thread.

To pull = to get off with = (USA)hit on - no, hang on, hitting on doesn't suggest success,
whereas if you've pulled, you're in. Or is that what you meant?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
Your phrase - "chatting up" - could be construed as a conversation in
which the male unfavorably dominates the female. "Pulling" suggests
physically manhandling a female. We know better, though.

Who mentioned "pulling"? No one in this thread.

To pull = to get off with = (USA)hit on - no, hang on, hitting on doesn't suggest success,
whereas if you've pulled, you're in. Or is that what you meant?

No, I meant that no one but Tony Cooper had mentioned "pulled," and if it be a
British idiom in the "hit on" vein (which he may have thought he heard in some
British costume drama on cable TV), its interpretation has not thus far been
elucidated.

"Get off with" suggests to me 'achieve orgasm with the assistance of'. Is that
your intent?

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 11:00:05 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
Your phrase - "chatting up" - could be construed as a conversation in
which the male unfavorably dominates the female. "Pulling" suggests
physically manhandling a female. We know better, though.

Who mentioned "pulling"? No one in this thread.

To pull = to get off with = (USA)hit on - no, hang on, hitting on doesn't suggest success,
whereas if you've pulled, you're in. Or is that what you meant?

No, I meant that no one but Tony Cooper had mentioned "pulled," and if it be a
British idiom in the "hit on" vein (which he may have thought he heard in some
British costume drama on cable TV), its interpretation has not thus far been
elucidated.

It is one of the phrases associated with social contact in the same
way that "hit on" is associated. It is one of the phrases where the
literal meaning is quite the opposite of the understood meaning as is
"hit on". It was entirely appropriate to bring to it in.

I don't know why you think it must be "elucidated" to be brought in or
why you think that something new, but related, shouldn't be introduced
into a thread.

I would think that the majority of the readers of this group have no
need for elucidation.

While your "costume drama" remark was probably intended as sarcasm,
you either don't know what a costume drama is or you don't have a
concept of what phrases were used in the periods portrayed in costume
dramas.

Season 2 of the costume drama "Victoria", by the way, will be
available on PBS channels - not cable channels - January 14th.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 11:00:05 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
Your phrase - "chatting up" - could be construed as a conversation in
which the male unfavorably dominates the female. "Pulling" suggests
physically manhandling a female. We know better, though.

Who mentioned "pulling"? No one in this thread.

To pull = to get off with = (USA)hit on - no, hang on, hitting on doesn't suggest success,
whereas if you've pulled, you're in. Or is that what you meant?

No, I meant that no one but Tony Cooper had mentioned "pulled," and if it be a
British idiom in the "hit on" vein (which he may have thought he heard in some
British costume drama on cable TV), its interpretation has not thus far been
elucidated.

It is one of the phrases associated with social contact in the same

Who is doing this "associating"? Are you claiming that a bunch of horny guys
go to the bar to pull women? In the US? In the UK?

Post by Tony Cooper
way that "hit on" is associated. It is one of the phrases where the
literal meaning is quite the opposite of the understood meaning as is
"hit on". It was entirely appropriate to bring to it in.
I don't know why you think it must be "elucidated" to be brought in or
why you think that something new, but related, shouldn't be introduced
into a thread.
I would think that the majority of the readers of this group have no
need for elucidation.

Yet none has stepped up with either an explanation or a link to a dictionary
entry.

Post by Tony Cooper
While your "costume drama" remark was probably intended as sarcasm,
you either don't know what a costume drama is or you don't have a
concept of what phrases were used in the periods portrayed in costume
dramas.
Season 2 of the costume drama "Victoria", by the way, will be
available on PBS channels - not cable channels - January 14th.

Did Albert pull Victoria?

You, however, proclaim your inability to distinguish between broadcast and
cable channels, continually going on about those only available to cable
subscribers.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 12:00:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 11:00:05 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
Your phrase - "chatting up" - could be construed as a conversation in
which the male unfavorably dominates the female. "Pulling" suggests
physically manhandling a female. We know better, though.

Who mentioned "pulling"? No one in this thread.

To pull = to get off with = (USA)hit on - no, hang on, hitting on doesn't suggest success,
whereas if you've pulled, you're in. Or is that what you meant?

No, I meant that no one but Tony Cooper had mentioned "pulled," and if it be a
British idiom in the "hit on" vein (which he may have thought he heard in some
British costume drama on cable TV), its interpretation has not thus far been
elucidated.

It is one of the phrases associated with social contact in the same

Who is doing this "associating"? Are you claiming that a bunch of horny guys
go to the bar to pull women? In the US? In the UK?

With any luck, yes. That's exactly what they do except in bars where
a bunch of horny guys go to pull men. The only difference is the term
used in the US would be different (perhaps "score") than the term in
the UK.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
way that "hit on" is associated. It is one of the phrases where the
literal meaning is quite the opposite of the understood meaning as is
"hit on". It was entirely appropriate to bring to it in.
I don't know why you think it must be "elucidated" to be brought in or
why you think that something new, but related, shouldn't be introduced
into a thread.
I would think that the majority of the readers of this group have no
need for elucidation.

Yet none has stepped up with either an explanation or a link to a dictionary
entry.

Maybe not, but that's because it's a term that has been around enough
that no one sees a need to explain it. You seem to the only one
uninformed on the usage.

Probably used in shows like "Coupling". Maybe by Rose in KUA. Rose
was an easy pull.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
While your "costume drama" remark was probably intended as sarcasm,
you either don't know what a costume drama is or you don't have a
concept of what phrases were used in the periods portrayed in costume
dramas.
Season 2 of the costume drama "Victoria", by the way, will be
available on PBS channels - not cable channels - January 14th.

Did Albert pull Victoria?
You, however, proclaim your inability to distinguish between broadcast and
cable channels, continually going on about those only available to cable
subscribers.

Is this a straw man or a non sequitur or a melding of both?

Because it's slang, I have to resort to the Urban Dictionary:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pull

"Word used to describe the successful act of attracting a person to
such an extent that you would be able to snog or perhaps bone them if
you so desired."

Example: "With the help of my lucky Y-fronts I should be able to pull
tonight"

Now...what else do you need defined? Snog? Bone? Y-fronts? (All
known to probably all else here)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 12:00:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 11:00:05 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
Your phrase - "chatting up" - could be construed as a conversation in
which the male unfavorably dominates the female. "Pulling" suggests
physically manhandling a female. We know better, though.

Who mentioned "pulling"? No one in this thread.

To pull = to get off with = (USA)hit on - no, hang on, hitting on doesn't suggest success,
whereas if you've pulled, you're in. Or is that what you meant?

No, I meant that no one but Tony Cooper had mentioned "pulled," and if it be a
British idiom in the "hit on" vein (which he may have thought he heard in some
British costume drama on cable TV), its interpretation has not thus far been
elucidated.

It is one of the phrases associated with social contact in the same

Who is doing this "associating"? Are you claiming that a bunch of horny guys
go to the bar to pull women? In the US? In the UK?

With any luck, yes. That's exactly what they do except in bars where
a bunch of horny guys go to pull men. The only difference is the term
used in the US would be different (perhaps "score") than the term in
the UK.

Ah. So now it has finally been dragged out of you that you think it's a British
expression.

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
way that "hit on" is associated. It is one of the phrases where the
literal meaning is quite the opposite of the understood meaning as is
"hit on". It was entirely appropriate to bring to it in.
I don't know why you think it must be "elucidated" to be brought in or
why you think that something new, but related, shouldn't be introduced
into a thread.
I would think that the majority of the readers of this group have no
need for elucidation.

Yet none has stepped up with either an explanation or a link to a dictionary
entry.

Maybe not, but that's because it's a term that has been around enough
that no one sees a need to explain it. You seem to the only one
uninformed on the usage.
Probably used in shows like "Coupling". Maybe by Rose in KUA. Rose
was an easy pull.

A costume drama in which the costumes were closer to contemporary.

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
While your "costume drama" remark was probably intended as sarcasm,
you either don't know what a costume drama is or you don't have a
concept of what phrases were used in the periods portrayed in costume
dramas.
Season 2 of the costume drama "Victoria", by the way, will be
available on PBS channels - not cable channels - January 14th.

Did Albert pull Victoria?
You, however, proclaim your inability to distinguish between broadcast and
cable channels, continually going on about those only available to cable
subscribers.

Is this a straw man or a non sequitur or a melding of both?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pull

So there may be exactly one person in the world who thought it would be fun
to invent a usage and put it in the U.D.

Post by Tony Cooper
"Word used to describe the successful act of attracting a person to
such an extent that you would be able to snog or perhaps bone them if
you so desired."
Example: "With the help of my lucky Y-fronts I should be able to pull
tonight"

Now it's become intransitive?

Post by Tony Cooper
Now...what else do you need defined? Snog? Bone? Y-fronts? (All
known to probably all else here)

All clearly British.

You didn't answer the question. Did Albert pull Victoria?

And you haven't used it in a sentence.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 20:15:16 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 12:00:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 11:00:05 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
Your phrase - "chatting up" - could be construed as a conversation in
which the male unfavorably dominates the female. "Pulling" suggests
physically manhandling a female. We know better, though.

Who mentioned "pulling"? No one in this thread.

To pull = to get off with = (USA)hit on - no, hang on, hitting on doesn't suggest success,
whereas if you've pulled, you're in. Or is that what you meant?

No, I meant that no one but Tony Cooper had mentioned "pulled," and if it be a
British idiom in the "hit on" vein (which he may have thought he heard in some
British costume drama on cable TV), its interpretation has not thus far been
elucidated.

It is one of the phrases associated with social contact in the same

Who is doing this "associating"? Are you claiming that a bunch of horny guys
go to the bar to pull women? In the US? In the UK?

With any luck, yes. That's exactly what they do except in bars where
a bunch of horny guys go to pull men. The only difference is the term
used in the US would be different (perhaps "score") than the term in
the UK.

Ah. So now it has finally been dragged out of you that you think it's a British
expression.

You're doing it again: seeing that you have erred but trying to blame
someone else for causing you to make the error.

The paragraph I wrote started out "Your phrase" and then used
"chatting up" and "pulled" as examples of "Your phrase" in a reply to
a Brit. That should drag up the understanding that the phrases are UK
phrases. I added the belt and braces by finishing with "We know
better".

Post by Peter T. Daniels
So there may be exactly one person in the world who thought it would be fun
to invent a usage and put it in the U.D.

Put the shovel down. You are quite deep enough already.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
"Word used to describe the successful act of attracting a person to
such an extent that you would be able to snog or perhaps bone them if
you so desired."
Example: "With the help of my lucky Y-fronts I should be able to pull
tonight"

Now it's become intransitive?

Post by Tony Cooper
Now...what else do you need defined? Snog? Bone? Y-fronts? (All
known to probably all else here)

All clearly British.

I think "bone" is sufficiently used by Americans to be removed from
the "chiefly British" group.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
And you haven't used it in a sentence.

Which form do you want? Pull or pulled?

"PTD couldn't pull in The Eagle in Vauxhall if he'd offer to pay".

or

The last time PTD was pulled was when he was the last man available
before time at The George & Dragon in Shoreditch".

You might have to Google those references unless you've been to
London.

[Ken Blake]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 01:25:59 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 20:15:16 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 12:00:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 11:00:05 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
Your phrase - "chatting up" - could be construed as a conversation in
which the male unfavorably dominates the female. "Pulling" suggests
physically manhandling a female. We know better, though.

Who mentioned "pulling"? No one in this thread.

To pull = to get off with = (USA)hit on - no, hang on, hitting on doesn't suggest success,
whereas if you've pulled, you're in. Or is that what you meant?

No, I meant that no one but Tony Cooper had mentioned "pulled," and if it be a
British idiom in the "hit on" vein (which he may have thought he heard in some
British costume drama on cable TV), its interpretation has not thus far been
elucidated.

It is one of the phrases associated with social contact in the same

Who is doing this "associating"? Are you claiming that a bunch of horny guys
go to the bar to pull women? In the US? In the UK?

With any luck, yes. That's exactly what they do except in bars where
a bunch of horny guys go to pull men. The only difference is the term
used in the US would be different (perhaps "score") than the term in
the UK.

Ah. So now it has finally been dragged out of you that you think it's a British
expression.

You're doing it again: seeing that you have erred but trying to blame
someone else for causing you to make the error.
The paragraph I wrote started out "Your phrase" and then used
"chatting up" and "pulled" as examples of "Your phrase" in a reply to
a Brit. That should drag up the understanding that the phrases are UK
phrases. I added the belt and braces by finishing with "We know
better".

Post by Peter T. Daniels
So there may be exactly one person in the world who thought it would be fun
to invent a usage and put it in the U.D.

Put the shovel down. You are quite deep enough already.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
"Word used to describe the successful act of attracting a person to
such an extent that you would be able to snog or perhaps bone them if
you so desired."
Example: "With the help of my lucky Y-fronts I should be able to pull
tonight"

Now it's become intransitive?

Post by Tony Cooper
Now...what else do you need defined? Snog? Bone? Y-fronts? (All
known to probably all else here)

All clearly British.

I think "bone" is sufficiently used by Americans to be removed from
the "chiefly British" group.

It was new to me. I had to Google i

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Ken Blake
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 01:25:59 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 20:15:16 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 12:00:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 11:00:05 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
Your phrase - "chatting up" - could be construed as a conversation in
which the male unfavorably dominates the female. "Pulling" suggests
physically manhandling a female. We know better, though.

Who mentioned "pulling"? No one in this thread.

To pull = to get off with = (USA)hit on - no, hang on, hitting on doesn't suggest success,
whereas if you've pulled, you're in. Or is that what you meant?

No, I meant that no one but Tony Cooper had mentioned "pulled," and if it be a
British idiom in the "hit on" vein (which he may have thought he heard in some
British costume drama on cable TV), its interpretation has not thus far been
elucidated.

It is one of the phrases associated with social contact in the same

Who is doing this "associating"? Are you claiming that a bunch of horny guys
go to the bar to pull women? In the US? In the UK?

With any luck, yes. That's exactly what they do except in bars where
a bunch of horny guys go to pull men. The only difference is the term
used in the US would be different (perhaps "score") than the term in
the UK.

Ah. So now it has finally been dragged out of you that you think it's a British
expression.

You're doing it again: seeing that you have erred but trying to blame
someone else for causing you to make the error.
The paragraph I wrote started out "Your phrase" and then used
"chatting up" and "pulled" as examples of "Your phrase" in a reply to
a Brit. That should drag up the understanding that the phrases are UK
phrases. I added the belt and braces by finishing with "We know
better".

Post by Peter T. Daniels
So there may be exactly one person in the world who thought it would be fun
to invent a usage and put it in the U.D.

Put the shovel down. You are quite deep enough already.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
"Word used to describe the successful act of attracting a person to
such an extent that you would be able to snog or perhaps bone them if
you so desired."
Example: "With the help of my lucky Y-fronts I should be able to pull
tonight"

Now it's become intransitive?

Post by Tony Cooper
Now...what else do you need defined? Snog? Bone? Y-fronts? (All
known to probably all else here)

All clearly British.

I think "bone" is sufficiently used by Americans to be removed from
the "chiefly British" group.

It was new to me. I had to Google it.

You need to bone up on current American usage.

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 01:25:59 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 20:15:16 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
"Word used to describe the successful act of attracting a person to
such an extent that you would be able to snog or perhaps bone them if
you so desired."
Example: "With the help of my lucky Y-fronts I should be able to pull
tonight"

Now it's become intransitive?

Post by Tony Cooper
Now...what else do you need defined? Snog? Bone? Y-fronts? (All
known to probably all else here)

All clearly British.

I think "bone" is sufficiently used by Americans to be removed from
the "chiefly British" group.

It was new to me. I had to Google it.

You need to bone up on current American usage.

Or hone up on, perhaps.

I thought "bone" must be American. I can't be mixing in the right
circles these days.

[Ken Blake]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 13:25:00 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 01:25:59 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 20:15:16 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 12:00:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 11:00:05 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
Your phrase - "chatting up" - could be construed as a conversation in
which the male unfavorably dominates the female. "Pulling" suggests
physically manhandling a female. We know better, though.

Who mentioned "pulling"? No one in this thread.

To pull = to get off with = (USA)hit on - no, hang on, hitting on doesn't suggest success,
whereas if you've pulled, you're in. Or is that what you meant?

No, I meant that no one but Tony Cooper had mentioned "pulled," and if it be a
British idiom in the "hit on" vein (which he may have thought he heard in some
British costume drama on cable TV), its interpretation has not thus far been
elucidated.

It is one of the phrases associated with social contact in the same

Who is doing this "associating"? Are you claiming that a bunch of horny guys
go to the bar to pull women? In the US? In the UK?

With any luck, yes. That's exactly what they do except in bars where
a bunch of horny guys go to pull men. The only difference is the term
used in the US would be different (perhaps "score") than the term in
the UK.

Ah. So now it has finally been dragged out of you that you think it's a British
expression.

You're doing it again: seeing that you have erred but trying to blame
someone else for causing you to make the error.
The paragraph I wrote started out "Your phrase" and then used
"chatting up" and "pulled" as examples of "Your phrase" in a reply to
a Brit. That should drag up the understanding that the phrases are UK
phrases. I added the belt and braces by finishing with "We know
better".

Post by Peter T. Daniels
So there may be exactly one person in the world who thought it would be fun
to invent a usage and put it in the U.D.

Put the shovel down. You are quite deep enough already.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
"Word used to describe the successful act of attracting a person to
such an extent that you would be able to snog or perhaps bone them if
you so desired."
Example: "With the help of my lucky Y-fronts I should be able to pull
tonight"

Now it's become intransitive?

Post by Tony Cooper
Now...what else do you need defined? Snog? Bone? Y-fronts? (All
known to probably all else here)

All clearly British.

I think "bone" is sufficiently used by Americans to be removed from
the "chiefly British" group.

It was new to me. I had to Google it.

You need to bone up on current American usage.

LOL. Yes, I know I miss a lot of that current usage, mostly because

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pull

So there may be exactly one person in the world who thought it would be fun
to invent a usage and put it in the U.D.

Post by Tony Cooper
"Word used to describe the successful act of attracting a person to
such an extent that you would be able to snog or perhaps bone them if
you so desired."
Example: "With the help of my lucky Y-fronts I should be able to pull
tonight"

Now it's become intransitive?

It's both and it's certainly not just found in the Urban
Dictionary.

OED: pull

12. trans.

a. Brit. slang. To pick up (a partner), esp. for sexual intercourse; to seduce. Also intr.

1965 Sunday Express 25 July 17/2 As a young man I could never pull (pick up) any birds of my own class.
1973 E. Boyd & R. Parkes Dark Number vi. 69 Five years ago you did the big male-menopause bit, didn't you? Skulking off to Paris to prove you could still pull the birds.
1985 J. Sullivan in Only Fools & Horses: Bible of Peckham iv. 246 Rodney, use your loaf, you're never gonna pull a tart dressed up like Bertie Bassett.
1993 Bella 29 Sept. 40/1 ‘So you're a barman,’ she said with a wicked glint in her eyes. ‘I bet you don't have any trouble pulling.’

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 06:30:35 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pull

So there may be exactly one person in the world who thought it would be fun
to invent a usage and put it in the U.D.

Post by Tony Cooper
"Word used to describe the successful act of attracting a person to
such an extent that you would be able to snog or perhaps bone them if
you so desired."
Example: "With the help of my lucky Y-fronts I should be able to pull
tonight"

Now it's become intransitive?

It's both and it's certainly not just found in the Urban
Dictionary.
OED: pull
12. trans.
a. Brit. slang. To pick up (a partner), esp. for sexual intercourse; to seduce. Also intr.
1965 Sunday Express 25 July 17/2 As a young man I could never pull (pick up) any birds of my own class.
1973 E. Boyd & R. Parkes Dark Number vi. 69 Five years ago you did the big male-menopause bit, didn't you? Skulking off to Paris to prove you could still pull the birds.
1985 J. Sullivan in Only Fools & Horses: Bible of Peckham iv. 246 Rodney, use your loaf, you're never gonna pull a tart dressed up like Bertie Bassett.
1993 Bella 29 Sept. 40/1 ‘So you're a barman,’ she said with a wicked glint in her eyes. ‘I bet you don't have any trouble pulling.’

Glad you posted that. I don't have access to the OED, so I can't go
to a real dictionary when the usage is British.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 06:30:35 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pull

So there may be exactly one person in the world who thought it would be fun
to invent a usage and put it in the U.D.

Post by Tony Cooper
"Word used to describe the successful act of attracting a person to
such an extent that you would be able to snog or perhaps bone them if
you so desired."
Example: "With the help of my lucky Y-fronts I should be able to pull
tonight"

Now it's become intransitive?

It's both and it's certainly not just found in the Urban
Dictionary.
OED: pull
12. trans.
a. Brit. slang. To pick up (a partner), esp. for sexual intercourse; to seduce. Also intr.
1965 Sunday Express 25 July 17/2 As a young man I could never pull (pick up) any birds of my own class.
1973 E. Boyd & R. Parkes Dark Number vi. 69 Five years ago you did the big male-menopause bit, didn't you? Skulking off to Paris to prove you could still pull the birds.
1985 J. Sullivan in Only Fools & Horses: Bible of Peckham iv. 246 Rodney, use your loaf, you're never gonna pull a tart dressed up like Bertie Bassett.
1993 Bella 29 Sept. 40/1 ‘So you're a barman,’ she said with a wicked glint in her eyes. ‘I bet you don't have any trouble pulling.’

Glad you posted that. I don't have access to the OED, so I can't go
to a real dictionary when the usage is British.

I wonder whether Tony Cooper will be able to comprehend that I encountered this thread -- with
actual (albeit disgusting) examples -- _after_ I encountered the thread in which he claimed that
examples had been posted.

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
Your phrase - "chatting up" - could be construed as a conversation in
which the male unfavorably dominates the female. "Pulling" suggests
physically manhandling a female. We know better, though.

Who mentioned "pulling"? No one in this thread.

To pull = to get off with = (USA)hit on - no, hang on, hitting on doesn't suggest success,
whereas if you've pulled, you're in. Or is that what you meant?

No, I meant that no one but Tony Cooper had mentioned "pulled," and if it be a
British idiom in the "hit on" vein (which he may have thought he heard in some
British costume drama on cable TV), its interpretation has not thus far been
elucidated.
"Get off with" suggests to me 'achieve orgasm with the assistance of'. Is that
your intent?

I doubt it. In BrE it meant, back in the day, to find that the object of
one's interest returned those sentiments, so that you both wanted to
exclude others while investigating this mutual attraction further.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
Your phrase - "chatting up" - could be construed as a conversation in
which the male unfavorably dominates the female. "Pulling" suggests
physically manhandling a female. We know better, though.

Who mentioned "pulling"? No one in this thread.

To pull = to get off with = (USA)hit on - no, hang on, hitting on
doesn't suggest success,
whereas if you've pulled, you're in. Or is that what you meant?

No, I meant that no one but Tony Cooper had mentioned "pulled," and if it be a
British idiom in the "hit on" vein (which he may have thought he heard in some
British costume drama on cable TV), its interpretation has not thus far been
elucidated.
"Get off with" suggests to me 'achieve orgasm with the assistance of'. Is that
your intent?

I doubt it. In BrE it meant, back in the day, to find that the object of
one's interest returned those sentiments, so that you both wanted to
exclude others while investigating this mutual attraction further.

That's slightly more intelligible than Tony Cooper's attempt to weasel out of
explaining a word he may have heard in a sex comedy and misinterpreted. Are
you explaining only "get off with," or also "pull"?

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
Your phrase - "chatting up" - could be construed as a conversation in
which the male unfavorably dominates the female. "Pulling" suggests
physically manhandling a female. We know better, though.

Who mentioned "pulling"? No one in this thread.

To pull = to get off with = (USA)hit on - no, hang on, hitting on
doesn't suggest success,
whereas if you've pulled, you're in. Or is that what you meant?

No, I meant that no one but Tony Cooper had mentioned "pulled," and if it be a
British idiom in the "hit on" vein (which he may have thought he heard in some
British costume drama on cable TV), its interpretation has not thus far been
elucidated.
"Get off with" suggests to me 'achieve orgasm with the assistance of'. Is that
your intent?

I doubt it. In BrE it meant, back in the day, to find that the object of
one's interest returned those sentiments, so that you both wanted to
exclude others while investigating this mutual attraction further.

That's slightly more intelligible than Tony Cooper's attempt to weasel out of
explaining a word he may have heard in a sex comedy and misinterpreted. Are
you explaining only "get off with," or also "pull"?

I'm sure the range of meaning of each does shift and has shifted with
time and with context, including the social group in which the
conversation takes place. To my mind, "pull" implied scant respect for
the other party, and more progress towards - how shall I put it - sexual
congress?

[LFS]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper

On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-5, Paul Carmichael

Post by Paul Carmichael

On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 11:25:10 AM UTC-5, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
Your phrase - "chatting up" - could be construed as a

conversation in

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Tony Cooper
which the male unfavorably dominates the female.  "Pulling"

suggests

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Tony Cooper
physically manhandling a female.  We know better, though.

Who mentioned "pulling"? No one in this thread.

To pull = to get off with = (USA)hit on - no, hang on, hitting on
doesn't suggest success,
whereas if you've pulled, you're in. Or is that what you meant?

No, I meant that no one but Tony Cooper had mentioned "pulled," and if it be a
British idiom in the "hit on" vein (which he may have thought he heard in some
British costume drama on cable TV), its interpretation has not thus

far been

elucidated.
"Get off with" suggests to me 'achieve orgasm with the assistance of'. Is that
your intent?

I doubt it. In BrE it meant, back in the day, to find that the object of
one's interest returned those sentiments, so that you both wanted to
exclude others while investigating this mutual attraction further.

That's slightly more intelligible than Tony Cooper's attempt to weasel out of
explaining a word he may have heard in a sex comedy and
misinterpreted. Are
you explaining only "get off with," or also "pull"?

I'm sure the range of meaning of each does shift and has shifted with
time and with context, including the social group in which the
conversation takes place. To my mind, "pull" implied scant respect for
the other party, and more progress towards - how shall I put it - sexual
congress?

As in the instruction "Get your coat, you've pulled."

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by LFS

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper

On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-5, Paul Carmichael

Post by Paul Carmichael

On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 11:25:10 AM UTC-5, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
Your phrase - "chatting up" - could be construed as a

conversation in

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Tony Cooper
which the male unfavorably dominates the female.  "Pulling"

suggests

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Tony Cooper
physically manhandling a female.  We know better, though.

Who mentioned "pulling"? No one in this thread.

To pull = to get off with = (USA)hit on - no, hang on, hitting on
doesn't suggest success,
whereas if you've pulled, you're in. Or is that what you meant?

No, I meant that no one but Tony Cooper had mentioned "pulled," and if it be a
British idiom in the "hit on" vein (which he may have thought he heard in some
British costume drama on cable TV), its interpretation has not thus

far been

elucidated.
"Get off with" suggests to me 'achieve orgasm with the assistance of'. Is that
your intent?

I doubt it. In BrE it meant, back in the day, to find that the object of
one's interest returned those sentiments, so that you both wanted to
exclude others while investigating this mutual attraction further.

That's slightly more intelligible than Tony Cooper's attempt to weasel out of
explaining a word he may have heard in a sex comedy and
misinterpreted. Are
you explaining only "get off with," or also "pull"?

I'm sure the range of meaning of each does shift and has shifted with
time and with context, including the social group in which the
conversation takes place. To my mind, "pull" implied scant respect for
the other party, and more progress towards - how shall I put it -
sexual congress?

As in the instruction "Get your coat, you've pulled."

Featured in a long thread here in 2015. The title was "Doing a foreigner".

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper

On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-5, Paul Carmichael

Post by Paul Carmichael

On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 11:25:10 AM UTC-5, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
Your phrase - "chatting up" - could be construed as a

conversation in

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Tony Cooper
which the male unfavorably dominates the female.  "Pulling"

suggests

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Tony Cooper
physically manhandling a female.  We know better, though.

Who mentioned "pulling"? No one in this thread.

To pull = to get off with = (USA)hit on - no, hang on, hitting on
doesn't suggest success,
whereas if you've pulled, you're in. Or is that what you meant?

No, I meant that no one but Tony Cooper had mentioned "pulled," and if it be a
British idiom in the "hit on" vein (which he may have thought he heard in some
British costume drama on cable TV), its interpretation has not thus

far been

elucidated.
"Get off with" suggests to me 'achieve orgasm with the assistance of'. Is that
your intent?

I doubt it. In BrE it meant, back in the day, to find that the object of
one's interest returned those sentiments, so that you both wanted to
exclude others while investigating this mutual attraction further.

That's slightly more intelligible than Tony Cooper's attempt to weasel out of
explaining a word he may have heard in a sex comedy and
misinterpreted. Are
you explaining only "get off with," or also "pull"?

I'm sure the range of meaning of each does shift and has shifted with
time and with context, including the social group in which the
conversation takes place. To my mind, "pull" implied scant respect for
the other party, and more progress towards - how shall I put it - sexual
congress?

I feel this quotation implies scant respect and considerable progress.
If so, maybe it's from a different context from yours.

"'The trouble with Ian,' said Miss Rosamond Lehmann, borrowing a
quotation from Elizabeth Bowen, 'is that he gets off with women because
he can't get on with them.'"

John Person, /The Life of Ian Fleming/

https://books.google.com/books?id=zHXVds2Y3BgC&pg=PT94

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper

On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-5, Paul
Carmichael

Post by Paul Carmichael

On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 11:25:10 AM UTC-5, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
Your phrase - "chatting up" - could be construed as a

conversation in

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Tony Cooper
which the male unfavorably dominates the female.  "Pulling"

suggests

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Tony Cooper
physically manhandling a female.  We know better, though.

Who mentioned "pulling"? No one in this thread.

To pull = to get off with = (USA)hit on - no, hang on, hitting on
doesn't suggest success,
whereas if you've pulled, you're in. Or is that what you meant?

No, I meant that no one but Tony Cooper had mentioned "pulled," and if it be a
British idiom in the "hit on" vein (which he may have thought he heard in some
British costume drama on cable TV), its interpretation has not

far been

elucidated.
"Get off with" suggests to me 'achieve orgasm with the assistance of'. Is that
your intent?

I doubt it. In BrE it meant, back in the day, to find that the object of
one's interest returned those sentiments, so that you both wanted to
exclude others while investigating this mutual attraction further.

That's slightly more intelligible than Tony Cooper's attempt to
weasel out of
explaining a word he may have heard in a sex comedy and
misinterpreted. Are
you explaining only "get off with," or also "pull"?

I'm sure the range of meaning of each does shift and has shifted
with time and with context, including the social group in which the
conversation takes place. To my mind, "pull" implied scant respect for
the other party, and more progress towards - how shall I put it -
sexual congress?

I feel this quotation implies scant respect and considerable progress.
If so, maybe it's from a different context from yours.
"'The trouble with Ian,' said Miss Rosamond Lehmann, borrowing a
quotation from Elizabeth Bowen, 'is that he gets off with women because
he can't get on with them.'"
John Person, /The Life of Ian Fleming/
https://books.google.com/books?id=zHXVds2Y3BgC&pg=PT94

Let's just say that the terms are flexible, and when they are used they
need to be interpreted.

[Cheryl]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?"
This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant.  And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite.  "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

 Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise "coming
on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make advances
towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds very
agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited into a
woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As that Trump
fellow described it.

Not to me - it doesn't imply groping or anything I'd call assault. It
might be uninvited, of course - like a stranger or acquaintance at a
social event making some kind of flattering or inviting comment - but
someone has to make the first approach. I'd say "making a pass at" is
pretty well an exact equivalent.

But I'm familiar with the North American usage.

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?"
This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant.  And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite.  "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

 Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise
"coming on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make
advances towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds
very agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited
into a woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As
that Trump fellow described it.

Not to me - it doesn't imply groping or anything I'd call assault. It
might be uninvited, of course - like a stranger or acquaintance at a
social event making some kind of flattering or inviting comment - but
someone has to make the first approach. I'd say "making a pass at" is
pretty well an exact equivalent.
But I'm familiar with the North American usage.

If it wasn't clear from my post, I was until a few days ago totally
ignorant of this idiom. So out of the blue, a statement that a man is
hitting on a woman in a sexual context could only have one
interpretation. It's going to take a while for my mental imaging to
re-calibrate itself.

[Quinn C]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Cheryl

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds
very agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited
into a woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As
that Trump fellow described it.

Not to me - it doesn't imply groping or anything I'd call assault. It
might be uninvited, of course - like a stranger or acquaintance at a
social event making some kind of flattering or inviting comment - but
someone has to make the first approach. I'd say "making a pass at" is
pretty well an exact equivalent.
But I'm familiar with the North American usage.

If it wasn't clear from my post, I was until a few days ago totally
ignorant of this idiom. So out of the blue, a statement that a man is
hitting on a woman in a sexual context could only have one
interpretation. It's going to take a while for my mental imaging to
re-calibrate itself.

Sure, these things can happen. When someone hears for the first
time "hit on" as in "after a few days, we hit on the solution",
they might imagine that people were violently destroying the
solution which they didn't find satisfactory after trying it out
for a few days. It's fine as long as we don't pretend that our
mental image is the sole obvious one.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Quinn C
Sure, these things can happen. When someone hears for the first
time "hit on" as in "after a few days, we hit on the solution",
they might imagine that people were violently destroying the
solution which they didn't find satisfactory after trying it out
for a few days. It's fine as long as we don't pretend that our
mental image is the sole obvious one.

But that would be expressed as "hit the solution."

[Quinn C]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C
Sure, these things can happen. When someone hears for the first
time "hit on" as in "after a few days, we hit on the solution",
they might imagine that people were violently destroying the
solution which they didn't find satisfactory after trying it out
for a few days. It's fine as long as we don't pretend that our
mental image is the sole obvious one.

But that would be expressed as "hit the solution."

I took my example from a dictionary, in order to be sure. It could
have been a specifically British expression, but a quick Web
search suggests otherwise:

| The engineers at the Fraunhofer Institute hit on the solution: a
| type of compression algorithm that could make audio files
| smaller without losing sound quality.
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/audio/a26518/mp3-is-free/>

| Kilby and Noyce hit on the solution almost simultaneously,
| combining separate components in an integrated circuit made of
| a semi-conductor material.
<https://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/12/27/explorers.silicon/index.html>

| Paper proved problematic, however, so Eastman kept experimenting
| until he hit on the solution: cellulose.
<https://www.wired.com/2007/09/dayintech-0904-2/>

Maybe an expression mostly used in technology.

[Dingbat]

Post by Quinn C
| Paper proved problematic, however, so Eastman kept experimenting
| until he hit on the solution: cellulose.
<https://www.wired.com/2007/09/dayintech-0904-2/>

Film is also called celluloid which seems to imply that it is like cellulose
rather than that it is cellulose.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Dingbat
Film is also called celluloid which seems to imply that it is like cellulose
rather than that it is cellulose.

"Celluloid" was originally a trademark, but yes, it is a chemical derived
from cellulose. The stuff hasn't actually been used for film for some
decades -- too flammable -- but the word survives in reference to movies.

[Tak To]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Dingbat
Film is also called celluloid which seems to imply that it is like cellulose
rather than that it is cellulose.

"Celluloid" was originally a trademark, but yes, it is a chemical derived
from cellulose.

The first man made plastic, actually.

Post by Mark Brader
The stuff hasn't actually been used for film for some
decades -- too flammable -- but the word survives in reference to movies.

Also "cel" in animation, a transparent sheet on which
pictures are drawn.

Ping ping balls used to be made with celluloid. Since 2015
only non-celluloid balls are allowed in ITTF sanctioned
tournaments. The change in material altered the
characteristics of the ball and the game. It is still
controversial.

[Quinn C]

Post by Tak To

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Dingbat
Film is also called celluloid which seems to imply that it is like cellulose
rather than that it is cellulose.

"Celluloid" was originally a trademark, but yes, it is a chemical derived
from cellulose.

The first man made plastic, actually.

Post by Mark Brader
The stuff hasn't actually been used for film for some
decades -- too flammable -- but the word survives in reference to movies.

Also "cel" in animation, a transparent sheet on which
pictures are drawn.
Ping ping balls used to be made with celluloid. Since 2015
only non-celluloid balls are allowed in ITTF sanctioned
tournaments. The change in material altered the
characteristics of the ball and the game. It is still
controversial.

I wasn't particularly prone to such endeavors in my childhood, but
I did once lit a ping pong ball on fire to see what happens. I was
surprised by how avidly it burned, and I wasn't able to stop it.
Fortunately, I did the experiment in a relatively safe place (I
think, on a window sill made of marble.)

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Dingbat

Post by Quinn C
| Paper proved problematic, however, so Eastman kept experimenting
| until he hit on the solution: cellulose.
<https://www.wired.com/2007/09/dayintech-0904-2/>

Film is also called celluloid which seems to imply that it is like cellulose
rather than that it is cellulose.

Also called 'nitrate', because it actually was nitrocellulose.
This is indeed quite flammable,
and can even be used as an explosive.
(when suitably detonated)
So archives are a permanent fire hazard.

In the news this week, because in a Frisian archive
someone discovered the missing 'hanging scene'
(believed lost)
from Stan laurells early solo movie 'Detained', (1924)

Jan

ps wikip is there already
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detained_(film)>

[Tak To]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Dingbat

Post by Quinn C
| Paper proved problematic, however, so Eastman kept experimenting
| until he hit on the solution: cellulose.
<https://www.wired.com/2007/09/dayintech-0904-2/>

Film is also called celluloid which seems to imply that it is like cellulose
rather than that it is cellulose.

Also called 'nitrate', because it actually was nitrocellulose.
This is indeed quite flammable,
and can even be used as an explosive.
(when suitably detonated)
So archives are a permanent fire hazard.

Nitrocellulose films have long been replaced by celluloid
acetate films (commonly called "safety film") since the 1950s.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Tak To

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Dingbat

Post by Quinn C
| Paper proved problematic, however, so Eastman kept experimenting
| until he hit on the solution: cellulose.
<https://www.wired.com/2007/09/dayintech-0904-2/>

Film is also called celluloid which seems to imply that it is like
cellulose rather than that it is cellulose.

Also called 'nitrate', because it actually was nitrocellulose.
This is indeed quite flammable,
and can even be used as an explosive.
(when suitably detonated)
So archives are a permanent fire hazard.

Nitrocellulose films have long been replaced by celluloid
acetate films (commonly called "safety film") since the 1950s.

So they retro-fitted all archives?

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Tak To

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Dingbat

Post by Quinn C
| Paper proved problematic, however, so Eastman kept experimenting
| until he hit on the solution: cellulose.
<https://www.wired.com/2007/09/dayintech-0904-2/>

Film is also called celluloid which seems to imply that it is like
cellulose rather than that it is cellulose.

Also called 'nitrate', because it actually was nitrocellulose.
This is indeed quite flammable,
and can even be used as an explosive.
(when suitably detonated)
So archives are a permanent fire hazard.

Nitrocellulose films have long been replaced by celluloid
acetate films (commonly called "safety film") since the 1950s.

So they retro-fitted all archives?

"They" have certainly tried to. Meaning museums like the Museum of Modern Art,
the Library of Congress, and the various institutions in, at least, New York,
Chicago, and Los Angeles dedicated to preserving the evidence for the art form
and, where possible, retrieving whatever can be retrieved from nearly hopelessly
degraded media. The find last year of many reels of film from the 1920s, at the
"end of the line" in Alaska, raised hopes that some lost items may in fact be
recovered.

[Pierre Jelenc]

Post by Tak To
Nitrocellulose films have long been replaced by celluloid
acetate films (commonly called "safety film") since the 1950s.

"cellulose acetate".

Celluloid is nitrocellulose, aka cellulose nitrate, with camphor and
sometimes other plasticizers added make it more flexible and mostly
non-explosive (although still highly flammable).

Nitrate film had an incomparable crispness that apparently cannot be
achieved on acetate. Not that anyone cares anymore, in the age of digital
displays.

Pierre

[Tak To]

Post by Pierre Jelenc

Post by Tak To
Nitrocellulose films have long been replaced by celluloid
acetate films (commonly called "safety film") since the 1950s.

"cellulose acetate".
Celluloid is nitrocellulose, aka cellulose nitrate, with camphor and
sometimes other plasticizers added make it more flexible and mostly
non-explosive (although still highly flammable).
Nitrate film had an incomparable crispness that apparently cannot be
achieved on acetate.

Crispness of a photographic image has to do with whether
it is focused, the depth of field, etc. Graininess has
to do with how nature of the emulsion and how it is
developed. I can't think of a definition of crispness
that has to do with the film base. Perhaps it means
non-elasticity? Brittleness?

Post by Pierre Jelenc
Not that anyone cares anymore, in the age of digital
displays.

FSVO "anyone".

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Tak To

Post by Pierre Jelenc

Post by Tak To
Nitrocellulose films have long been replaced by celluloid
acetate films (commonly called "safety film") since the 1950s.

"cellulose acetate".
Celluloid is nitrocellulose, aka cellulose nitrate, with camphor and
sometimes other plasticizers added make it more flexible and mostly
non-explosive (although still highly flammable).
Nitrate film had an incomparable crispness that apparently cannot be
achieved on acetate.

Crispness of a photographic image has to do with whether
it is focused, the depth of field, etc. Graininess has
to do with how nature of the emulsion and how it is
developed. I can't think of a definition of crispness
that has to do with the film base. Perhaps it means
non-elasticity? Brittleness?

Maybe transparency, with minimal scattering of transmitted light.

[Pierre Jelenc]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Tak To

Post by Pierre Jelenc

Post by Tak To
Nitrocellulose films have long been replaced by celluloid
acetate films (commonly called "safety film") since the 1950s.

"cellulose acetate".
Celluloid is nitrocellulose, aka cellulose nitrate, with camphor and
sometimes other plasticizers added make it more flexible and mostly
non-explosive (although still highly flammable).
Nitrate film had an incomparable crispness that apparently cannot be
achieved on acetate.

Crispness of a photographic image has to do with whether
it is focused, the depth of field, etc. Graininess has
to do with how nature of the emulsion and how it is
developed. I can't think of a definition of crispness
that has to do with the film base. Perhaps it means
non-elasticity? Brittleness?

Maybe transparency, with minimal scattering of transmitted light.

I don't know what the mechanism was, but the effect was very noticeable.
Back in the early 70s, the film department at MoMA in New York still
screened occasionally nitrate prints, and they were stunning compared with
acetate prints made from original (nitrate) negatives.

Pierre

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C
Sure, these things can happen. When someone hears for the first
time "hit on" as in "after a few days, we hit on the solution",
they might imagine that people were violently destroying the
solution which they didn't find satisfactory after trying it out
for a few days. It's fine as long as we don't pretend that our
mental image is the sole obvious one.

But that would be expressed as "hit the solution."

I took my example from a dictionary, in order to be sure. It could
have been a specifically British expression, but a quick Web

"Hit on the solution" means 'hit on the solution'. Your scenario, however,
smashing the solution to bits, would not be expressed as "hit on the solution."

Post by Quinn C
| The engineers at the Fraunhofer Institute hit on the solution: a
| type of compression algorithm that could make audio files
| smaller without losing sound quality.
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/audio/a26518/mp3-is-free/>
| Kilby and Noyce hit on the solution almost simultaneously,
| combining separate components in an integrated circuit made of
| a semi-conductor material.
<https://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/12/27/explorers.silicon/index.html>
| Paper proved problematic, however, so Eastman kept experimenting
| until he hit on the solution: cellulose.
<https://www.wired.com/2007/09/dayintech-0904-2/>
Maybe an expression mostly used in technology.

Maybe not.

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C
Sure, these things can happen. When someone hears for the first
time "hit on" as in "after a few days, we hit on the solution",
they might imagine that people were violently destroying the
solution which they didn't find satisfactory after trying it out
for a few days. It's fine as long as we don't pretend that our
mental image is the sole obvious one.

But that would be expressed as "hit the solution."

It could be, but not would be, normally. "Hit on the solution" is the
more natural BrE in that instance.

I don't see any parallel with "hit on a woman" meaning "signal an
interest towards a woman".

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 23:05:21 +0000, Paul Wolff

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C
Sure, these things can happen. When someone hears for the first
time "hit on" as in "after a few days, we hit on the solution",
they might imagine that people were violently destroying the
solution which they didn't find satisfactory after trying it out
for a few days. It's fine as long as we don't pretend that our
mental image is the sole obvious one.

But that would be expressed as "hit the solution."

It could be, but not would be, normally. "Hit on the solution" is the
more natural BrE in that instance.
I don't see any parallel with "hit on a woman" meaning "signal an
interest towards a woman".

I'm not sure we need a logical reason for expressions to exist. They
just kinda come about.

"Hitting on" means more than signaling interest. It's chatting up the
other person and attempting to pull.

It is not limited to male/female pairs, either. It's done in the East
Village and elseplace same-on-same.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C
Sure, these things can happen. When someone hears for the first
time "hit on" as in "after a few days, we hit on the solution",
they might imagine that people were violently destroying the
solution which they didn't find satisfactory after trying it out
for a few days. It's fine as long as we don't pretend that our
mental image is the sole obvious one.

But that would be expressed as "hit the solution."

Really? You smash a beaker (or whatever the solution was stored in) by
hitting on it, rather than by hitting it?

Post by Paul Wolff
It could be, but not would be, normally. "Hit on the solution" is the
more natural BrE in that instance.
I don't see any parallel with "hit on a woman" meaning "signal an
interest towards a woman".

[Pierre Jelenc]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Really? You smash a beaker (or whatever the solution was stored in) by
hitting on it, rather than by hitting it?

But the point is that if you've never heard the expression at all, you
need to guess, and you guess by attempting to fit it to the words you
know. "Hit on", you see "hit", therefore "strike", plus "on", a rather
vague preposition that can be ignored. Thereby a complete misunderstanding
occurs.

US "hit on" is exactly synonymous with French "draguer" and Swedish
"ragga", neither of which convey any hint of violence whatsoever, as well.

Pierre

[Janet]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Cheryl

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?"
This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant.  And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite.  "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

 Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise
"coming on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make
advances towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds
very agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited
into a woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As
that Trump fellow described it.

Not to me - it doesn't imply groping or anything I'd call assault. It
might be uninvited, of course - like a stranger or acquaintance at a
social event making some kind of flattering or inviting comment - but
someone has to make the first approach. I'd say "making a pass at" is
pretty well an exact equivalent.
But I'm familiar with the North American usage.

If it wasn't clear from my post, I was until a few days ago totally
ignorant of this idiom.

I bet every woman here knew it, from tiresome experience :-(.

Janet

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Janet

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Cheryl

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?"
This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant.  And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite.  "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

 Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise
"coming on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make
advances towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds
very agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited
into a woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As
that Trump fellow described it.

Not to me - it doesn't imply groping or anything I'd call assault. It
might be uninvited, of course - like a stranger or acquaintance at a
social event making some kind of flattering or inviting comment - but
someone has to make the first approach. I'd say "making a pass at" is
pretty well an exact equivalent.
But I'm familiar with the North American usage.

If it wasn't clear from my post, I was until a few days ago totally
ignorant of this idiom.

I bet every woman here knew it, from tiresome experience :-(.

Some men are aware that some women spend a great deal of time and
money to appear attractive but then resent their attractiveness being
noticed by men in the form of attempting to meet them.

Those women will then deny that the time and money spent was done in
pursuit of being pursued...but only when the pursuer was not found to
be equally attractive.

All relationships start with one party hitting on another party. It's
just that the term "hitting on" isn't applied when the hitting on is
welcomed.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Janet

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Cheryl

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?"
This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant.  And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite.  "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

 Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise
"coming on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make
advances towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds
very agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited
into a woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As
that Trump fellow described it.

Not to me - it doesn't imply groping or anything I'd call assault. It
might be uninvited, of course - like a stranger or acquaintance at a
social event making some kind of flattering or inviting comment - but
someone has to make the first approach. I'd say "making a pass at" is
pretty well an exact equivalent.
But I'm familiar with the North American usage.

If it wasn't clear from my post, I was until a few days ago totally
ignorant of this idiom.

I bet every woman here knew it, from tiresome experience :-(.

Some men are aware that some women spend a great deal of time and
money to appear attractive but then resent their attractiveness being
noticed by men in the form of attempting to meet them.
Those women will then deny that the time and money spent was done in
pursuit of being pursued...but only when the pursuer was not found to
be equally attractive.
All relationships start with one party hitting on another party. It's
just that the term "hitting on" isn't applied when the hitting on is
welcomed.
--

Ah the infinite wheel of love, each pursuing the one in front
while being pursued by the one behind. It's a miracle the
human race survives!

[Cheryl]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 10:17:59 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Janet

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Cheryl

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?"
This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from

context what it

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Janet

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Cheryl

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
meant.  And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite.  "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I

thought

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Janet

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Cheryl

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Mark Brader
"hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

 Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would

recognise

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Janet

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Cheryl

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud
"coming on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make
advances towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds
very agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding

uninvited

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Janet

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Cheryl

Post by Paul Wolff
into a woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As
that Trump fellow described it.

Not to me - it doesn't imply groping or anything I'd call

assault. It

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Janet

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Cheryl
might be uninvited, of course - like a stranger or acquaintance at a
social event making some kind of flattering or inviting comment - but
someone has to make the first approach. I'd say "making a pass at" is
pretty well an exact equivalent.
But I'm familiar with the North American usage.

If it wasn't clear from my post, I was until a few days ago

totally

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Janet

Post by Paul Wolff
ignorant of this idiom.

I bet every woman here knew it, from tiresome experience :-(.

Some men are aware that some women spend a great deal of time and
money to appear attractive but then resent their attractiveness being
noticed by men in the form of attempting to meet them.
Those women will then deny that the time and money spent was done in
pursuit of being pursued...but only when the pursuer was not found to
be equally attractive.
All relationships start with one party hitting on another party.

It's

Post by Tony Cooper
just that the term "hitting on" isn't applied when the hitting on is
welcomed.

I agree with you to the last sentence. I don't think 'hitting on"
implies that the approach is unwanted.

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Janet

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Cheryl

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?"
This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant.  And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite.  "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

 Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise
"coming on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make
advances towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds
very agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited
into a woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As
that Trump fellow described it.

Not to me - it doesn't imply groping or anything I'd call assault. It
might be uninvited, of course - like a stranger or acquaintance at a
social event making some kind of flattering or inviting comment - but
someone has to make the first approach. I'd say "making a pass at" is
pretty well an exact equivalent.
But I'm familiar with the North American usage.

If it wasn't clear from my post, I was until a few days ago totally
ignorant of this idiom.

I bet every woman here knew it, from tiresome experience :-(.

Some men are aware that some women spend a great deal of time and
money to appear attractive but then resent their attractiveness being
noticed by men in the form of attempting to meet them.
Those women will then deny that the time and money spent was done in
pursuit of being pursued...but only when the pursuer was not found to
be equally attractive.
All relationships start with one party hitting on another party. It's
just that the term "hitting on" isn't applied when the hitting on is
welcomed.

I once mortally offended one (rather kooky) young lady
by not making a pass at her. Her world view was that all
men were pigs etc. I knew her through her mother (whom I
also did not make a pass at).

GOK if I ever disappointed any other women.

[Tak To]

Post by Janet

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Cheryl

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?"
This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant.  And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite.  "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

 Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise
"coming on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make
advances towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds
very agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited
into a woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As
that Trump fellow described it.

Not to me - it doesn't imply groping or anything I'd call assault. It
might be uninvited, of course - like a stranger or acquaintance at a
social event making some kind of flattering or inviting comment - but
someone has to make the first approach. I'd say "making a pass at" is
pretty well an exact equivalent.
But I'm familiar with the North American usage.

If it wasn't clear from my post, I was until a few days ago totally
ignorant of this idiom.

I bet every woman here knew it, from tiresome experience :-(.

This is very interesting since "tiresome" implies a high frequency.
Does this means that the women netters in AUE are all above average?
I had no idea.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Tak To

Post by Janet

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Cheryl

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?"
This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought
"hitting on" meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying"
meant *feeling* it.

Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise
"coming on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make
advances towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds
very agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited
into a woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As
that Trump fellow described it.

Not to me - it doesn't imply groping or anything I'd call assault. It
might be uninvited, of course - like a stranger or acquaintance at a
social event making some kind of flattering or inviting comment - but
someone has to make the first approach. I'd say "making a pass at" is
pretty well an exact equivalent.
But I'm familiar with the North American usage.

If it wasn't clear from my post, I was until a few days ago totally
ignorant of this idiom.

I bet every woman here knew it, from tiresome experience :-(.

This is very interesting since "tiresome" implies a high frequency.
Does this means that the women netters in AUE are all above average?
I had no idea.

Hadn't you noticed that we are all of us are above average?

Jan

[Paul Wolff]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Tak To

Post by Janet

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Cheryl

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?"
This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought
"hitting on" meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying"
meant *feeling* it.

Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise
"coming on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make
advances towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds
very agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited
into a woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As
that Trump fellow described it.

Not to me - it doesn't imply groping or anything I'd call assault. It
might be uninvited, of course - like a stranger or acquaintance at a
social event making some kind of flattering or inviting comment - but
someone has to make the first approach. I'd say "making a pass at" is
pretty well an exact equivalent.
But I'm familiar with the North American usage.

If it wasn't clear from my post, I was until a few days ago totally
ignorant of this idiom.

I bet every woman here knew it, from tiresome experience :-(.

This is very interesting since "tiresome" implies a high frequency.
Does this means that the women netters in AUE are all above average?
I had no idea.

Hadn't you noticed that we are all of us are above average?

Average is only what you aver.

[Quinn C]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise "coming
on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make advances
towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds very
agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited into a
woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As that Trump
fellow described it.

This is a scene from TV, and I don' t know how realistic it is in
real life, but that's where I learn much of my English from: When
a woman at a bar tells her friend "You know he is hitting on you,
right?", the guy in question might just be throwing glances yet.
If you imagine the glances as arrows, yeah, that may count as
assault.

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise "coming
on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make advances
towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds very
agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited into a
woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As that Trump
fellow described it.

This is a scene from TV, and I don' t know how realistic it is in
real life, but that's where I learn much of my English from: When
a woman at a bar tells her friend "You know he is hitting on you,
right?", the guy in question might just be throwing glances yet.
If you imagine the glances as arrows, yeah, that may count as
assault.

What if they are Cupid's arrows?

Post by Quinn C
--
*Multitasking* /v./ Screwing up several things at once

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 12:58:12 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise "coming
on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make advances
towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds very
agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited into a
woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As that Trump
fellow described it.

This is a scene from TV, and I don' t know how realistic it is in
real life, but that's where I learn much of my English from: When
a woman at a bar tells her friend "You know he is hitting on you,
right?", the guy in question might just be throwing glances yet.
If you imagine the glances as arrows, yeah, that may count as
assault.

It could be an unwanted assault if the woman is not attracted to the
man, or it could be a very welcome advance if she finds the man
attractive.

That's the unfairness. How it construed is dependant on her rating of
him as a possible partner.

[Cheryl]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 12:58:12 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise "coming
on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make advances
towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds very
agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited into a
woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As that Trump
fellow described it.

This is a scene from TV, and I don' t know how realistic it is in
real life, but that's where I learn much of my English from: When
a woman at a bar tells her friend "You know he is hitting on you,
right?", the guy in question might just be throwing glances yet.
If you imagine the glances as arrows, yeah, that may count as
assault.

It could be an unwanted assault if the woman is not attracted to the
man, or it could be a very welcome advance if she finds the man
attractive.
That's the unfairness. How it construed is dependant on her rating of
him as a possible partner.

And that's unreasonable. It's hardly an assault, however unattractive
she finds him, if he hits on her by inviting her to see his etchings (or
whatever the modern equivalent is) or even by holding her hand, as long
as he desists when she says she has to wash her hair or pulls her hand
away.

One of my sisters encountered a man whose idea of hitting on a woman was
to walk up to her and suggest "let's fuck". Still not an assault even
though she didn't find him or his approach attractive and said "no". He
wandered off, presumably to find someone more responsive.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Cheryl
One of my sisters encountered a man whose idea of hitting on a woman
was to walk up to her and suggest "let's fuck". Still not an assault
even though she didn't find him or his approach attractive and said
"no". He wandered off, presumably to find someone more responsive.

Once I knew someone like that. He claimed that, even with a 97%
rejection rate, the other 3% made the strategy worthwhile.

[Janet]

In article <p3bo97$lo$***@dont-email.me>, ***@pmoylan.org.invalid
says...

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Cheryl
One of my sisters encountered a man whose idea of hitting on a woman
was to walk up to her and suggest "let's fuck". Still not an assault
even though she didn't find him or his approach attractive and said
"no". He wandered off, presumably to find someone more responsive.

Once I knew someone like that. He claimed that, even with a 97%
rejection rate, the other 3% made the strategy worthwhile.

Probably both sides were pre-conditioned in childhood.

This is how fucked children often end up replicating and reliving the
experience over and over again, in adult relationships.

Janet.

[Tak To]

Post by Janet
says...

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Cheryl
One of my sisters encountered a man whose idea of hitting on a woman
was to walk up to her and suggest "let's fuck". Still not an assault
even though she didn't find him or his approach attractive and said
"no". He wandered off, presumably to find someone more responsive.

Once I knew someone like that. He claimed that, even with a 97%
rejection rate, the other 3% made the strategy worthwhile.

Probably both sides were pre-conditioned in childhood.
This is how fucked children often end up replicating and reliving the
experience over and over again, in adult relationships.

Children??

[Katy Jennison]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Tony Cooper
It could be an unwanted assault if the woman is not attracted to the
man, or it could be a very welcome advance if she finds the man
attractive.
That's the unfairness.  How it construed is dependant on her rating of
him as a possible partner.

And that's unreasonable. It's hardly an assault, however unattractive
she finds him, if he hits on her by inviting her to see his etchings (or
whatever the modern equivalent is) or even by holding her hand, as long
as he desists when she says she has to wash her hair or pulls her hand
away.

I agree with this, provided that there's no power differential.
"Thanks, but nothing doing" is easier for the hittee to say if the
hitter is not their boss or their arresting cop or the person who can
accept or reject their book or give them a part in a play.

Post by Cheryl
One of my sisters encountered a man whose idea of hitting on a woman was
to walk up to her and suggest "let's fuck". Still not an assault even
though she didn't find him or his approach attractive and said "no". He
wandered off, presumably to find someone more responsive.

Commendably direct. "I'm not offering you flowers, chocolates, dinner
or sweet-talking, just straightforward physical gratification." More
honest than some.

[Cheryl]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:33:19 +0000, Katy Jennison

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Cheryl

Post by Tony Cooper
It could be an unwanted assault if the woman is not attracted to the
man, or it could be a very welcome advance if she finds the man
attractive.
That's the unfairness.  How it construed is dependant on her rating of
him as a possible partner.

And that's unreasonable. It's hardly an assault, however

unattractive

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Cheryl
she finds him, if he hits on her by inviting her to see his

etchings (or

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Cheryl
whatever the modern equivalent is) or even by holding her hand, as long
as he desists when she says she has to wash her hair or pulls her hand
away.

I agree with this, provided that there's no power differential.
"Thanks, but nothing doing" is easier for the hittee to say if the
hitter is not their boss or their arresting cop or the person who can
accept or reject their book or give them a part in a play.

In the interest of accuracy, I don't think I'd call "Have sex with me
and I'll publish your book/ promote you/hire you" assault; I'd call
it extortion, which is at least as bad as an assault and might be
worse, legally and morally.

A consensual relationship involving a power differential is
different. I think its generally an extremely bad idea to be involved
in one, and a good idea for businesses to forbid them because of the
possibility of extortion or bribery. But they aren't always abusive
and don't always involve an assault.

In the special case in which the power differential is a result of
one person being exceptionally vulnerable and the other in a position
of special responsibility, I don't think any sexual relationship is
appropriate. But such relationships might not be assault in the usual
sense - the wrongness comes from the high risk of damage to the
vulnerable person and the violation of the responsibilities of the
role of the powerful person. This would cover police/ prisoner, close
relatives/child, teacher/student, social worker/client,
doctor/patient, and so on. I wouldn't apply it to employer/worker,
although, as I mentioned above, I think that's a very bad idea for
other reasons.

[Rich Ulrich]

Post by Cheryl
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:33:19 +0000, Katy Jennison

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Cheryl

Post by Tony Cooper
It could be an unwanted assault if the woman is not attracted to

the

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Cheryl

Post by Tony Cooper
man, or it could be a very welcome advance if she finds the man
attractive.
That's the unfairness.  How it construed is dependant on her

rating of

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Cheryl

Post by Tony Cooper
him as a possible partner.

And that's unreasonable. It's hardly an assault, however

unattractive

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Cheryl
she finds him, if he hits on her by inviting her to see his

etchings (or

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Cheryl
whatever the modern equivalent is) or even by holding her hand,

as long

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Cheryl
as he desists when she says she has to wash her hair or pulls her

hand

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Cheryl
away.

I agree with this, provided that there's no power differential.
"Thanks, but nothing doing" is easier for the hittee to say if the
hitter is not their boss or their arresting cop or the person who

can

Post by Katy Jennison
accept or reject their book or give them a part in a play.

In the interest of accuracy, I don't think I'd call "Have sex with me
and I'll publish your book/ promote you/hire you" assault; I'd call
it extortion, which is at least as bad as an assault and might be
worse, legally and morally.
A consensual relationship involving a power differential is
different. I think its generally an extremely bad idea to be involved
in one, and a good idea for businesses to forbid them because of the
possibility of extortion or bribery. But they aren't always abusive
and don't always involve an assault.
In the special case in which the power differential is a result of
one person being exceptionally vulnerable and the other in a position
of special responsibility, I don't think any sexual relationship is
appropriate. But such relationships might not be assault in the usual
sense - the wrongness comes from the high risk of damage to the
vulnerable person and the violation of the responsibilities of the
role of the powerful person. This would cover police/ prisoner, close
relatives/child, teacher/student, social worker/client,
doctor/patient, and so on. I wouldn't apply it to employer/worker,
although, as I mentioned above, I think that's a very bad idea for
other reasons.

I have trouble wrapping my mind around all the permutations
of power-relationships like employer/worker, police/prisoner....

Of course, when there is an overt threat, that's easy to condemn.

[Quinn C]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 12:58:12 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise "coming
on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make advances
towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds very
agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited into a
woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As that Trump
fellow described it.

This is a scene from TV, and I don' t know how realistic it is in
real life, but that's where I learn much of my English from: When
a woman at a bar tells her friend "You know he is hitting on you,
right?", the guy in question might just be throwing glances yet.
If you imagine the glances as arrows, yeah, that may count as
assault.

It could be an unwanted assault if the woman is not attracted to the
man, or it could be a very welcome advance if she finds the man
attractive.
That's the unfairness. How it construed is dependant on her rating of
him as a possible partner.

And that's unreasonable. It's hardly an assault, however unattractive
she finds him, if he hits on her by inviting her to see his etchings (or
whatever the modern equivalent is) or even by holding her hand, as long
as he desists when she says she has to wash her hair or pulls her hand
away.

I agree, but some women do handle these situations as Tony
describes. I have very politely approached a woman at a party
("Hi, I'm [name], how do you know the host?"), only to be rewarded
with body language that clearly said "why are you even talking to
me?" And I watched charming, good-looking guys get away with
getting up close and personal in about a minute (not with the same
woman, in case you wonder). I thought, and that's long ago, before
I had ever heard any discussion about "consent", that both these
behaviors do women a disservice.

[Cheryl]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Cheryl

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 12:58:12 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise "coming
on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make advances
towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds very
agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited into a
woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As that Trump
fellow described it.

This is a scene from TV, and I don' t know how realistic it is in
real life, but that's where I learn much of my English from: When
a woman at a bar tells her friend "You know he is hitting on you,
right?", the guy in question might just be throwing glances yet.
If you imagine the glances as arrows, yeah, that may count as
assault.

It could be an unwanted assault if the woman is not attracted to the
man, or it could be a very welcome advance if she finds the man
attractive.
That's the unfairness. How it construed is dependant on her rating of
him as a possible partner.

And that's unreasonable. It's hardly an assault, however unattractive
she finds him, if he hits on her by inviting her to see his etchings (or
whatever the modern equivalent is) or even by holding her hand, as long
as he desists when she says she has to wash her hair or pulls her hand
away.

I agree, but some women do handle these situations as Tony
describes. I have very politely approached a woman at a party
("Hi, I'm [name], how do you know the host?"), only to be rewarded
with body language that clearly said "why are you even talking to
me?" And I watched charming, good-looking guys get away with
getting up close and personal in about a minute (not with the same
woman, in case you wonder). I thought, and that's long ago, before
I had ever heard any discussion about "consent", that both these
behaviors do women a disservice.

Some people of both sexes do not always manage to politely evade a
social approach that they are not particularly interested in. Some can
be quite rude about it. And some, who construe a perfectly polite
approach in a situation in which such approaches are to be expected (at
a party, for example, while dressed in their most attractive style) are
either ignorant or dishonest about what they are looking for and what
social signals they are sending out.

I suspect there's no way around this. We all have to learn how to get on
in groups and understand social cues and what the best response is, and
I suppose some of us take a lot longer to work them out than others.
Some never do.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise "coming
on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make advances
towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds very
agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited into
a woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As that
Trump fellow described it.

PTD's leader, we discovered today.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by the Omrud

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise "coming
on to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make advances
towards", and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds very
agressive and violent.

It certainly does. To me, the phrase suggests intruding uninvited into
a woman's personal space and manually interfering with her. As that
Trump fellow described it.

PTD's leader, we discovered today.

So the self-proclaimed "expert" on all aspects of American culture has never
heard of Rocky & Bullwinkle? has never met the phrase "Fearless Leader"?? He
has Sheldon Cooper's appreciation of sarcasm. (Someone, please explain that
reference to him.)

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

*Habitual liar* PeteY "Genital Herpes" Daniels lied:
[About Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
So the self-proclaimed "expert" on all aspects of American culture

*Habitual liar* and psychopath PeteY, who maliciously accuses many
posters of lying, once again is *lying*. Athel has *never* claimed or
proclaimed to be an expert on *any* aspect of American culture.

See the psychopathic *habitual liar*:
Loading Image...

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Reinhold {Rey} Aman
[About Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
So the self-proclaimed "expert" on all aspects of American culture

*Habitual liar* and psychopath PeteY, who maliciously accuses many
posters of lying, once again is *lying*. Athel has *never* claimed or
proclaimed to be an expert on *any* aspect of American culture.

Goebbels would be proud of him. If he repeats a lie enough times people
will start to believe it.

If he thinks I ever proclaimed any such thing he can of course provide
a link to a relevant post. But he never backs up his statements with
evidence.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Reinhold {Rey} Aman
[About Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
So the self-proclaimed "expert" on all aspects of American culture

*Habitual liar* and psychopath PeteY, who maliciously accuses many
posters of lying, once again is *lying*. Athel has *never* claimed or
proclaimed to be an expert on *any* aspect of American culture.

Goebbels would be proud of him. If he repeats a lie enough times people
will start to believe it.
If he thinks I ever proclaimed any such thing he can of course provide
a link to a relevant post. But he never backs up his statements with
evidence.

Apparently Asshole Moron-Bowden has forgotten his myriad false assertions about American culture.

Yet he continues to suck up to his asshole-buddy the sociopath.

[Ken Blake]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 08:43:30 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Goebbels would be proud of him. If he repeats a lie enough times people
will start to believe it.

I'm not sure I'm right, but I thought it was Hitler, not Goebbels, who
said that.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Ken Blake
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 08:43:30 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Goebbels would be proud of him. If he repeats a lie enough times people
will start to believe it.

I'm not sure I'm right, but I thought it was Hitler, not Goebbels, who
said that.

Neither or both depending what you consider to be the actual quote.
The original, "A lie told often enough becomes truth.", is often
attributed to Lenin and even then it's suspected that he was quoting
an unknown source. So, origin unknown but they all said something
like it, appears to be your best bet.

[musika]

Post by Ken Blake
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 08:43:30 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Goebbels would be proud of him. If he repeats a lie enough times people
will start to believe it.

I'm not sure I'm right, but I thought it was Hitler, not Goebbels, who
said that.

It was attributed to Goebbels but there's no reliable source.
Hitler's was "the big lie".

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Ken Blake
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 08:43:30 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Goebbels would be proud of him. If he repeats a lie enough times people
will start to believe it.

I'm not sure I'm right, but I thought it was Hitler, not Goebbels, who
said that.

Hitler may have said it first, but I associate it with his propaganda minister.

[Richard Tobin]

Post by the Omrud
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds very
agressive and violent.

Yes. When I first heard it, I thought it must mean an assault.

-- Richard

[occam]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?"  This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant.  And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite.  "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise "coming on
to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make advances towards",
and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds very
agressive and violent.

The BrE terms, when accompanied with 'improper' or 'uninvited' or even
'inappropriate' may be approaching 'hitting on', which is more aggressive.

[Quinn C]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise "coming on
to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make advances towards",
and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds very
agressive and violent.

"Coming on to" is quite common in North America, and
interestingly, my image of it is more aggressive than that of
"hitting on". But that might be due to my chance encounters with
both phrases.

"Trying it on with" is alien, and could sound very direct
depending on how I interpret the "it".

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 20:26:04 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by the Omrud

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise "coming on
to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make advances towards",
and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds very
agressive and violent.

"Coming on to" is quite common in North America, and
interestingly, my image of it is more aggressive than that of
"hitting on". But that might be due to my chance encounters with
both phrases.
"Trying it on with" is alien, and could sound very direct
depending on how I interpret the "it".

For some reason I associate "trying it on" with a female saying it.
Never a male. "He's trying it on with me". I can't explain why I see
this as a female-only utterance.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 20:26:04 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by the Omrud

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

It's not language I have ever employed, but I would recognise "coming on
to", "making a pass at", "trying it on with", "make advances towards",
and more forwardly, "propositioning".
To the BrE ear, "hitting on", which is not a native idiom, sounds very
agressive and violent.

"Coming on to" is quite common in North America, and
interestingly, my image of it is more aggressive than that of
"hitting on". But that might be due to my chance encounters with
both phrases.
"Trying it on with" is alien, and could sound very direct
depending on how I interpret the "it".

To me, in BrE, I might understand that use of "Trying it on with" in
context, but the primary meaning of "try it on" or "try-on" is about
deception:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/try_it_on

try it on
PHRASE
British
informal
1 Attempt to deceive or seduce someone.

‘you'd better not be trying it on with me’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/try-on

British
informal
An attempt to fool or deceive someone.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Katy Jennison
An American man once said to me, "Do you mind me hitting on you?" This
was the first time I'd heard it, and I inferred from context what it
meant. And given that he asked "Do you mind" it wasn't a nuisance at
all, but actually very polite. "Fancying" would have been the BrE
equivalent at the time.

Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.
--

I think that's a fair distinction. You can certainly 'fancy' someone
without their being aware of it whereas if they are not aware of you
hitting on them you're not doing it right!

[Mark Brader]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader
Neither expression is in my active vocabulary, but I thought "hitting on"
meant *indicating* sexual interest while "fancying" meant *feeling* it.

Then what is in your active vocabulary for "hitting on" (if any)?

"Making a pass at", most likely.

[b***@aol.com]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Harrison Hill
"To hit on a woman" arrived in my vocabulary fairly recently,
and I'm not sure where it came from. It feels AmE, so perhaps
from a movie? It isn't a word I would expect to find in a
translation, so I'd be interested to know how it arrived from
BBC Headline: Catherine Deneuve defends men's "right to hit
on" women.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42630108>

Looking it up I find that the
'la liberté d'importuner' was probably the original phrase. [1]
If so "right to hit on" is a very poor translation.

It was in the title of the article, but it's not supposed to be a
verbatim translation - rather, it summarizes the content of the letter.

Actually, "hit on someone" is equivalent to "draguer quelqu'un", not
to "importuner quelqu'un".

Post by J. J. Lodder
It is more like making advances that may be a nuisance,
or pressed too hard.
They continue with
"Le viol est un crime. Mais la drague insistante ou maladroite n'est pas
un délit, ni la galanterie une agression machiste"
which is along these lines too.
Lots of feminists fell over each other in their hurry
to denouce the treason of those 100 women.
Perhaps some feminist ill-will in translating?
Jan
Jan
[1] "Nous défendons une liberté d'importuner, indispensable à la liberté
sexuelle. Nous sommes aujourd'hui suffisamment averties pour admettre
que la pulsion sexuelle est par nature offensive et sauvage, mais nous
sommes aussi suffisamment clairvoyantes pour ne pas confondre drague
maladroite et agression sexuelle"

[Cheryl]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Harrison Hill
"To hit on a woman" arrived in my vocabulary fairly recently,
and I'm not sure where it came from. It feels AmE, so perhaps
from a movie? It isn't a word I would expect to find in a
translation, so I'd be interested to know how it arrived from
BBC Headline: Catherine Deneuve defends men's "right to hit
on" women.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42630108>

Looking it up I find that the
'la liberté d'importuner' was probably the original phrase. [1]
If so "right to hit on" is a very poor translation.
It is more like making advances that may be a nuisance,
or pressed too hard.

That's exactly what "hitting on" means in that context.

Post by J. J. Lodder
They continue with
"Le viol est un crime. Mais la drague insistante ou maladroite n'est pas
un délit, ni la galanterie une agression machiste"
which is along these lines too.
Lots of feminists fell over each other in their hurry
to denouce the treason of those 100 women.
Perhaps some feminist ill-will in translating?

There are so many different kinds of "feminism" now that you can find a
group espousing almost any political or sociological view, with the
usual inter-factional rivalries. It's not like in my young days.....

Oh, well, it's generally not a good idea to assume malice when
incompetence might be in play, but I am far from convinced that it's
even a bad translation.

Post by J. J. Lodder
[1] "Nous défendons une liberté d'importuner, indispensable à la liberté
sexuelle. Nous sommes aujourd'hui suffisamment averties pour admettre
que la pulsion sexuelle est par nature offensive et sauvage, mais nous
sommes aussi suffisamment clairvoyantes pour ne pas confondre drague
maladroite et agression sexuelle"

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Cheryl

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Harrison Hill
"To hit on a woman" arrived in my vocabulary fairly recently,
and I'm not sure where it came from. It feels AmE, so perhaps
from a movie? It isn't a word I would expect to find in a
translation, so I'd be interested to know how it arrived from
BBC Headline: Catherine Deneuve defends men's "right to hit
on" women.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42630108>

Looking it up I find that the
'la liberté d'importuner' was probably the original phrase. [1]
If so "right to hit on" is a very poor translation.
It is more like making advances that may be a nuisance,
or pressed too hard.

That's exactly what "hitting on" means in that context.

...

I agree with others that "hit on" in any context doesn't imply being
a nuisance or pressing too hard.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:57:08 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Cheryl

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Harrison Hill
"To hit on a woman" arrived in my vocabulary fairly recently,
and I'm not sure where it came from. It feels AmE, so perhaps
from a movie? It isn't a word I would expect to find in a
translation, so I'd be interested to know how it arrived from
BBC Headline: Catherine Deneuve defends men's "right to hit
on" women.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42630108>

Looking it up I find that the
'la liberté d'importuner' was probably the original phrase. [1]
If so "right to hit on" is a very poor translation.
It is more like making advances that may be a nuisance,
or pressed too hard.

That's exactly what "hitting on" means in that context.

...
I agree with others that "hit on" in any context doesn't imply being
a nuisance or pressing too hard.

The whole couples thing depends on one or the other of the two hitting
on the other to get it started.

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:57:08 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Cheryl

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Harrison Hill
"To hit on a woman" arrived in my vocabulary fairly recently,
and I'm not sure where it came from. It feels AmE, so perhaps
from a movie? It isn't a word I would expect to find in a
translation, so I'd be interested to know how it arrived from
BBC Headline: Catherine Deneuve defends men's "right to hit
on" women.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42630108>

Looking it up I find that the
'la liberté d'importuner' was probably the original phrase. [1]
If so "right to hit on" is a very poor translation.
It is more like making advances that may be a nuisance,
or pressed too hard.

That's exactly what "hitting on" means in that context.

...
I agree with others that "hit on" in any context doesn't imply being
a nuisance or pressing too hard.

The whole couples thing depends on one or the other of the two hitting
on the other to get it started.

Sometimes it just instantly becomes obvious to both at the
same time.

Or does that make me an incurable romantic?

[m***@att.net]

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:57:08 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Cheryl

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Harrison Hill
"To hit on a woman" arrived in my vocabulary fairly recently,
and I'm not sure where it came from. It feels AmE, so perhaps
from a movie? It isn't a word I would expect to find in a
translation, so I'd be interested to know how it arrived from
BBC Headline: Catherine Deneuve defends men's "right to hit
on" women.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42630108>

Looking it up I find that the
'la liberté d'importuner' was probably the original phrase. [1]
If so "right to hit on" is a very poor translation.
It is more like making advances that may be a nuisance,
or pressed too hard.

That's exactly what "hitting on" means in that context.

...
I agree with others that "hit on" in any context doesn't imply being
a nuisance or pressing too hard.

The whole couples thing depends on one or the other of the two hitting
on the other to get it started.

Sometimes it just instantly becomes obvious to both at the
same time.
Or does that make me an incurable romantic?

A 'hitting on' might be relatively neutral event, but it takes a certain
directness if used in the first person.