Reconciling yucky boys and gross kissing with the occasional dance

My niece was positioned to be at the right age when many members of her extended family reached marrying age. In one summer, she served as the flower girl in three weddings. If she had wanted to sit bored during yet another rehearsal, I wouldn't have blamed her.

Her service as a flower girl overlapped the onset of the "boys are yucky" stage of young-girl development. Mind you, she still loved dressing up and playing princess. I guess she figured Sleeping Beauty's life was pretty good at first, but once the princess met Prince Phillip, it was all downhill from there.

Anyway, at one point she decided to tell me, "Kissing is gross. Boys are yucky. I'm never getting married."

I asked her, "What about Benjamin? You danced with him at your auntie's wedding yesterday."

She replied, "Oh, we're just friends."

And so it begins.

Comments (25)
  1. Tobias Langer says:

    Just friends is how I got my significant other.

  2. Mason Wheeler says:

    Heehee! They’re so cute at that age!

  3. xcomcmdr says:

    > ” And so it begins.”

    Kosh ?!

  4. Aged .Net Guy says:

    This bit: “If she had wanted to sit bored during yet another rehearsal, I wouldn’t have blamed her.” seems to be lacking a ~ someplace in the conditional. Which may result in program behavior other than as the author intended.

    1. Kevin says:

      I interpret “sit bored during X” as the alternative to “participate in X”; I assume that social rules prohibit “do not attend X at all.”

      1. Steve says:

        I think ‘flower girl not attending wedding rehearsal’ would be a major issue for someone, even if she is on her third time in the gig.

  5. ErikF says:

    Was the prince’s name Phillip in that fairy tale? I thought it was Charming, but possibly his name was “Phillip Charming” in which case both of us could be correct!

    1. ...doug says:

      Prince Charming was from Cinderella. And yes, the prince in Sleeping Beauty was Prince Phillip. At least in the Disney version. He seems to have been nameless in earlier versions.


      1. GWO says:

        Funny, because as a Brit whenever I see “Prince Phillip” I think of the husband of the present Queen. He’s never really been mistaken for Prince Charming, as his basically-racist-old-man social gaffes are well-known in these parts.

  6. Oh, my, God! You might excel at C, Windows API and useless Micro-speak, but your blog posts so far have given the impression that you are downright awful at whatever is related to social interactions.

    Did you, for one moment think what might happen if someone quoted this blog post to her or her parents? Or if she read it?

    I still haven’t forgotten the time when you wrote about customers cases here and protected their privacy by calling them Anthony Appleyard. (I assume good faith: You meant well.) But all the while you failed to realize that you were actually ridiculing them, and then adding a literal insult to the injury by referring to them with the name the established symbol of goofiness and good-for-nothingness.

    1. xcomcmdr says:

      Much ado about nothing : The Comment. ^


      1. What gave you the impression that this whole blog post is much ado about something?

        1. xcomcmdr says:

          You get off by pissing everyone else, don’t you ?

    2. Ian Longshore says:

      I dunno, but this sounds to me like typical, adorable, little-kid behavior. I don’t think it’s uncommon for writers and media personalities to describe this kind of stuff to the public, and despite not having kids myself, I love it.

      The other stuff you’re citing is quite different. There’s an entire genre of ridiculing technically incompetent customers and/or managers, and that’s what Chen is writing in that context. You should check out The Daily WTF for some examples by other authors.

    3. George says:

      I am trying to think for one moment what would happen if the parents read the post, or heard it quoted, and what I come up with is “a chuckle”. Most flower girls are not yet reading, I think; by the time this one is, she may have a bit of distance on her earlier opinions.

      In what realm of discourse is “Anthony Appleyard” an established symbol of ineptitude, by the way? I have never run across the name.

      1. Tim! says:

        At worst, future teenage niece would be mortified, just as all teenagers are mortified by family stories of their childhood foibles.

      2. I always call them Contoso and LitWare. Dunno where OP got Anthony Appleyard from.

        1. :palmface: 😱
          You took the “Anthony Appleyard” part literally? Oh, God.

          It is like talking about a time-saving trick in COMMAND.COM with someone who thinks the subject of talk is a domain name, as in!

          And it appears almost no one here understood the Anthony Appleyard construct. But it isn’t as surprising as the fact that no one here knows that gossip and backbiting is a very poor social misdemeanor. (By the way, alert: “Backbiting” is not literally biting someone’s back with teeth.) And backbiting a child no less!

          1. Wear says:

            Care to explain it? Googling for Anthony Appleyard all I find is people named Anthony Appleyard and no hints as to what you were referring too.

            As for the article I think it falls under the category of “Kids say that darndest things”. If her or her parents ever read this they would probably just agree with the rest of us that it’s funny. I’m not sure how you see this as “gossip and backbiting”.

          2. > I’m not sure how you see this as “gossip and backbiting”.

            That’s exactly what the members of Heinous Backbiters club say in their initiation ceremony: The hold a copy of The Most Heinous Instances of Backbiting in Human History over their head and chant “We’re not sure how any of this is backbiting.” Kids say that darndest things, and adults say even more darndest things, but unless they are said in the public, writing about them without prior consent is backbiting.

            > Care to explain it? Googling for Anthony Appleyard…
            No. Explaining the simplest thing that everyone is expected to know is damned hard and time-taking. Learn proper social conduct instead. It benefits you more. Knowing about alliteration+folk metaphor isn’t that critical.

          3. ChrisR says:

            Here is a hint Fleet Command: Nobody here has any clue what you are talking about. Shaming Raymond for talking about his family in a whimsical manner is beyond ridiculous. Who made you the subject matter expert on how his family would feel about anything? I’m sure Raymond has a better handle on that than you do. Honestly, please just leave. Your feigned distress over all this is really tiresome.

          4. Wear says:

            According to Wiktionary backbiting is defined as “The action of slandering a person without that person’s knowledge” with slander being “A false or unsupported, malicious statement”. So you are worried that Raymond is making up this story about his niece and that her reputation will be damaged if people thought she liked Benjamin?

            Also I believe it counts as proper social conduct to explain something if no one else in the group you are conversing with understands your reference. I asked out of friendly curiosity in an attempt to better understand your positon.

    4. xcomcmdr says:

      A search of “Antonhy Appleyard” on reveals only this question :

      So, not only you get ridiculously angry over made-up problems, but what you are referencing doesn’t exist.

      That’s internet bullying, plain and simple.

      1. Anon says:

        It’s not bullying if you’re protecting vulnerable groups. Even if those vulnerable groups are purely hypothetical like Mr Anthony Appleyard or the future teenage version of Raymond’s niece. Rather than being a regular concern troll or bully you’re fighting for social justice!


Comments are closed.

Skip to main content