Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Hippie-punching Previous entry: CSA Week 12: Post-Storm Edition

Dealbreakers

Sex

It's a holiday, so a good day for a nice, light post with some feminist grounding. Sady and Jill have both weighed in on the subject of dealbreakers, Sady explicitly in response to the rejecting-a-dude-for-geekiness controversy and Jill in response to GOOD's Dealbreakers feature.  I think both are good, important reads, especially since so many people are projecting their own fear of rejection onto the Gizmodo story and judging the writer on unfair grounds.  Sady, like myself, thought it dastardly to name the guy in the Gizmodo post, but, like myself, is appalled at all variations on the theme of, "Women who reject geeks are SHALLOW BITCHES AND I'LL BET YOUR NEXT BOYFRIEND HITS YOU AND THEN YOU'LL BE SORRY."  Ahem. Warning: Sady does screw up and misattributes this reaction from Jon Finkel himself, when in fact he reacted like a grown-up to the whole thing.  It was people who were projecting their own fears of rejection onto him that were doing this.  But please read it anyway, because her framing of the entire incident is fascinating.  She brings up the Frog Prince myth that is foisted on women---especially in romantic comedies---that the guy you find unappealing will, if you give him a chance, morph into Mr. Perfect.  And what a fucking lie that is.  

It's upsetting to read mostly women in comments come down on Sady like a hammer.  It's really obvious what's going on, of course. They're geeky and don't like being rejected for it, so they're projecting that onto the situation without thinking about what the alternative is, which is demanding that women lay sadly under men they find unattractive while those men penetrate their bodies, all in order to prove they aren't "shallow". That there is a fucked the fuck up demand and I applaud everyone who loudly proclaims against it.  As the comments at Feministe demonstrate, there are a lot of women out there who are being concern trolled by friends and family who expect them to settle for someone they don't want, because OMG you might be single and that's the worst thing that could ever happen to a woman.  

I liked Jill and Sady's posts because they spelled out some of their own dealbreakers, which helps normalize the idea that women have a right to say no and this doesn't make them shallow or evil.  Yes, even if what they very much don't want in their life is a geek.  Thinking about it, I realized when I was single, I had a long-ass list like Jill's(I guess I technically still do, but having a boyfriend, I don't have to mentally check in with it), and I refuse to be ashamed.  

*Bad or incompatible taste in music.  This was something I occasionally felt guilty about when I was single, but it was just a no-go.  If a guy liked a bunch of shitty or boring music, I knew there was no long-term potential.  If he was indifferent to music, there wasn't even short-term potential.  I mean, what are you going to talk about and what are you going to do for fun if music is off the table?  It would literally be like dating someone who isn't into sex for me.  Incompatible music is a slightly different issue, but still important.  I don't think I could make it work with someone who was deep into dance music or any other kind of music that I can accept can be very artful, but isn't my thing.  I don't like fighting over the stereo, because it's one place where I really stand my ground and then come across as bitchy.  The idea of spending a lot of time wearing a polite expression over someone else's taste makes me really sad.  A corollary to this is no dating of guys in bands you can't stand. This, I think, was one of the things that was escalating tension between my ex and myself that led to the break-up---it just can't be a coincidence that relations broke down rapidly while his taste in music to play began to drift in unacceptable directions.

*Bad dresser.  There's something off-putting to me about men who are dedicated slobs. Even if you're a jeans-and-T-shirt guy, I prefer a clean, well-fitting shirt and nice jeans.  And not wearing shit like sandals.  I would see guys who were sloppy dressers and I would think, "And there's someone who will never once want to go out to dinner just because the weather is nice."  In Austin, the music thing was never a problem, but sometimes the bad dresser thing could limit your options.  It's just a slovenly town, for all its other wonders.  But, as noted before, there's no shame in being single.  Plus, a lot of men in Austin have a studied casualness that looks good without being dressed-up.

*Beards.  Hate 'em. I don't mean like a couple day's stubble that you routinely remove, but like a full-on beard. It's not like I wouldn't be friends with a guy with a beard, but kissing a dude with a beard puts me way off.  I'm super glad to be off the market in our times of "mountain man" being a style.  I object to that style in total, but also just really don't like beards, which I refer to as "germ farm face pube crumb catchers".  I also feel a beard is making a mockery out of how much shaving women are still expected to do.  You have one thing to shave, guys!  That is not too much.  I never see hipster dude with a beard out about town with a woman sporting underarm and leg hair, you know.  

*Religion or belief in woo. Again, a main objective in my life is to minimize having to make polite, tolerant faces at someone else's bullshit.  There's enough of that in your family and social circles, so why invite it into your home?  If a guy was into astrology or, god forbid, religion, there is no fucking way.  None.  I can't stilfle my opinion about acupuncture for hours, so years is just off the table.  Plus, the god thing is heavily correlated with unquestioned hostilty towards female sexuality and independence.  I don't want to worry while dating a liberal Christian that one day I'm going to have a anti-patriarchy opinion that he's suddenly deeply uncomfortable with. But that's really a secondary concern, right behind my complete and utter inability to spend too much time around someone whose fantasies have such a powerful grip on them.

*Republicanism, anti-choice beliefs, bigotry that sort of thing.  I won't even be friends with someone who's anti-choice, honestly.  I consider it a form of bigotry, on par with homophobia.  I'm not friends with homophobes, so why should I be friends with someone who has lingering hostility towards women who want to have sex without "consequences"?  I've had situations where anti-choice people took my casual, happy nature as evidence that we could be friends, and I had to shut that down.  Just, no. Belief that I'm entitled to control my own body is minimum.  I'm fine with being friends with someone who feels they couldn't have an abortion themselves, but the second they judge someone else, we're done.  Needless to say, racism and homophobia are also just no-duh dealbreakers.

*Cat haters.  I haven't actually really dealt with this, but I  hear they're out there.  I don't fathom cat-hating.  I think it's based primarily on ignorance of how sweet cats are, but it's really not my job to educate someone on this topic. 

*Lacking an evil sense of humor.  It's not just that I need a guy with a sense of humor, but it also has to be dark, too.  I laugh at all sorts of inappropriate shit, and I not only need that to be acceptable to a guy, I need him to make me laugh by cracking dark jokes, too.  This is so incredibly critical.  Earnestness and I do not get along.  

I could go on, but you get the picture.  I've definitely spent time seeing guys who just didn't meet my idiosyncratic standards of what I wanted, because they were nice and fun and there was stuff you could do to kill time with them. I had a low-intensity life then, and could really afford to date recreationally, but some people's schedules are too full and I certainly sympathize with cutting someone off right away because they're not going to be a match.  My strategy was to keep it light.  "I'm just in a place for seeing anyone seriously right now," became my mantra.  This, of course, was abandoned as soon as I met someone who hit all the notes.  This is all the more reason that people need to let people have their face-saving white lies on the dating scene.  Because the other option---making them spell out why a commitment isn't going to happen---implies that the things they don't like about you are just objectively bad things.  And for someone else, they may not be.  For instance, a lot of folks don't give a flying fuck if you have shitty taste in music. 

I'm certainly not trying to suggest that one should be looking for another pea in a pod, and in fact, I'd caution people to really think hard about what does and doesn't matter to them.  Like, I have a lot of things about myself I don't have any need to have in common with a boyfriend.  I've found that I don't care if the guy I'm with is a vegetarian, a sports fan, or a lover of books.  I'm cheerfully indifferent to sports; I don't love them, but I don't hate them and I really don't mind dating a sports fan, but I've also dated guys who don't like sports at all.  I find it doesn't matter any which way to me.  I'm surprised at my own indifference to the books thing.  As long as someone is smart and funny, I don't care that they're perhaps not a giant bookworm like I am.  Part of that is that reading is such a private, idiosyncratic thing.  Even if you are dating a bookworm, he's probably not reading what you are, and so discussing what you're reading in depth is still off the table.  Now that everyone is online anyway, what you're going to probably have in common, private-consumption-wise, is websites and whatnot.   Make the book thing even less important.  Being open-minded is important, too.  I basically never watched TV before meeting Marc, and dating him has turned me into a huge lover of television.  So I'm grateful for that.  Learning new things and picking up new habits is one of the fun things about dating, and I wouldn't say anyone should abandon that in favor of some checklist.  

But you have a right to say no to stuff that's simply not negotiable.  And women specifically are asked far too often to apologize for this, and we need to stop apologizing. 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 08:42 AM • (305) Comments

<quote>I also feel a beard is making a mockery out of how much shaving women are still expected to do.  You have one thing to shave, guys!</quote>

That literally never occurs to us.

Comment #1: SomeGuy  on  09/05  at  09:11 AM

And now I look silly.

Comment #2: SomeGuy  on  09/05  at  09:14 AM

Part of what I think is interesting in this post is that your list of dealbreakers is pretty much the opposite of my list of dealbreakers - I don’t care about music, or facial hair, or dressiness on an everyday basis (though the ability to pull it together and wear a tie on occasion is appreciated). That said, I couldn’t date someone who doesn’t read, is a huge sports fan, isn’t a nerd, has no interest in food and cooking, or someone who values money as a status symbol (disclaimer: I make a decent amount. I just won’t date people who see this as a reflection of personal worth, because it’s really, really not). Full agreement on the woo, republicanism, or anti-choice BS, btw.

But that’s kind of the thing, isn’t it - dealbreakers are acceptable BECAUSE they’re different for everyone, so you don’t HAVE to suit everyone’s ideal. The flip side of the coin is that everyone is actually a lot happier if they have their dealbreakers and LISTEN to them rather than trying to date every incompatible person to be “nice”!

Comment #3: Roselyne  on  09/05  at  09:59 AM

Oh god yes to all of these, natch on bigots, anti choicer, Repubs, but hell yes on: Music, Beards, and lack of Evil Humour. (and cats too)
Music:I love my Metal and hardcore Punk and damn it, I want a someone to go crazy with at concerts.

Beards: fucking gross. Just yuck That is a perfect name for them you thought up. I hate them. I hate facial hair period. HATE. And I never even thought about the mockery aspect of it either. Excellent point!

Humor:  Dealbreaker: don’t get or like MadTV (Darlene McBride ftw!) fail to see the humor in this insanity:NSFW
http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php/weblog/comments/decadent_by_shayla_black/
Not getting the humor in Best in Show.

Comment #4: pitbullgirl65  on  09/05  at  09:59 AM

And see, I don’t mind beards (I think they’re kind of cuddly) but a mustache with no other facial hair is a dealbreaker. I could never trust a man who thought it was a good idea to wear a mustache. This came in handy once when I had a desperate crush on someone inapprorpriate. I didn’t see him for six months, then I saw him with a rednecky caterpillar on his lip and that was it: flames doused. Just a pitcher of ice water in the lap of love.

My biggest dealbreaker, other than voting for Republicans (does anybody here not have that on the list?) is driving an SUV. I didn’t just make that up five minutes ago now that SUV’s have become boring Mom-mobiles, I’ve been saying it since the late 90’s.

Comment #5: Flora  on  09/05  at  10:15 AM

A sense of humor that’s too different from mine definitely won’t work. Most of what I say out loud is partly tongue-in-cheek, and anyone who doesn’t get that probably won’t even be good friend material.

Comment #6: junk science  on  09/05  at  10:21 AM

That said, I draw a sharp distinction between bullying and humor.

Comment #7: junk science  on  09/05  at  10:22 AM

Flora, SUVs is a good one.  It didn’t occur to me until you mentioned it, but yeah, that would be a massive turn-off.  It’s never come up, though.  I think the kinds of guys that were even remotely on my radar when I was single were all compact car guys. Or even scooter/motorcycle guys.  I personally have driven both compact cars and compact pick-up trucks. I do love a nice pick-up, but it’s a myth that they have to be big or gas guzzlers.

Comment #8: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  10:31 AM

This is a great example of how you don’t need to feel bad about someone else’s dealbreaker because there is someone out there for you.

I have no problem with beards. I have been partnered for quite a while, and my husband is currently clean shaven, but he’s been bearded on and off since at least 2003 (Peace Corps will do that to a man), and I think it looks great and feels fine. Stubble hurts, but a beard is fine. And I’ve never worried too much about the whole “making a mockery” thing, perhaps because I wasn’t shaving my legs when we first started sleeping together and he’s never expressed the slightest opinion about my very casual approach to body hair management.

Comment #9: chingona  on  09/05  at  10:38 AM

Oh, and I once, well, “broke up” might be too strong a term, but I once decided not to keep seeing someone because he was way into Phish. We don’t have to share every taste (and indeed, we don’t), but some things are just too much to tolerate.

Comment #10: chingona  on  09/05  at  10:41 AM

Phish is an automatic dealbreaker for me.  Woof.

Comment #11: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  10:44 AM

It’s a good thing that I’m off the market. Otherwise my chin whiskers would apparently make dating difficult for me. I never really thought of my beard as an affront to women; “I don’t even shave my face while the ladies are expected to shave/wax/electrocute/whatever damn near their whole bodies.” I’m still not shaving though.

Comment #12: phil zombi  on  09/05  at  10:48 AM

I broke up with a really great guy, for a variety of reasons, but fundamentally, he was pushing for commitment and I simply couldn’t see myself with someone who hadn’t read a fiction book since High School. He went to college/grad school in engineering, he read non-fiction books (lots of pop-psychology, tho, so even though he was an atheist, he did still have some woo in his life), but HE NEVER READ FICTION AT ALL. I know that many men are like that, my dad certainly reads at least 3 non-fiction books for every fiction book (but my adorable daddy also read all the Harry Potter books right after I was done with them); my brother is a book-worm; even my non-college educated brother-in-law reads fiction…all the women in my family are avid readers…so I guess considering that everyone in my family is a book-worm (and even if our tastes vary), its SUPER important to me that you read fiction as well as non-fiction. Yeah, I always felt a little guilty that that was really the deal-breaker for me (especially to consider any kind of long-term commitment like he was after), but this thread (carried over from the Magic rejection conversation the other day) makes me feel better about that whole situation.

Cats: agreed

Music: eh, I am a musician, so having zero interest in music is a deal-breaker, but tastes may vary and as long as I’m not expected to go to some kind of “Linkin’ Park” concert or similar (although, if he completely refused to listen to quality music or NPR while cooking together or something, that would be a deal breaker.

Sports/Video Games: take it or leave it, agreed, but one’s interest has to be reasonable. I don’t want to be a sports or video game widow.

Republicanism/anti-choice/homophobia: not even an option. Unfortunately, I have been asked out by several Libertarians in my day, whose atheism and sex/drugs/rock-n-roll have confused me, but I can tell the signs now, so add Libertarians to Republicans as DEALBREAKERS.

Religion: I haven’t completely worked this one out yet. I have dated several atheists and that tends to simplify things…and I’m non-theistic/humanist, but I also belong to a liberal religious community (Unitarians)...of course, the only single guys there are gay, so…

Beards: I think beards are kinda cute, but I’ve never kissed a guy with a beard so I guess my ignorance will have to sideline this objection.

Slovenly Dress: I FUCKING HATE DUDES IN SHORTS! Seriously, hate hate hate men in shorts, especially, JEAN SHORTS. Also, I hate white socks with dark shoes—stop that boys, just stop it. You look stupid. That all said, I wouldn’t call those deal-breakers, just turn-offs.

Foodie: If a dude tries to order off the children’s menu, its all over. In other words, if all he will eat when out is boring, bland, American food, we ain’t gonna make it. I don’t mind being the one who primarily cooks (although, if I cook, you clean up is the rule in my family or origin’s house—thank goodness), but you have to appreciate a variety of foods and ethnic cuisines.

Addiction/Binge Drinking: Duh, no one says “I want a drunk” but for me, I’m wary of early signs of alcoholism because of my sister’s drinking problem. I could be reactionary here and overly sensitive, but there it is. 

Sense of Humor, slightly dark: Yes please! There’s this really earnest guy in my social circle who is lovely, but simply doesn’t get dark humor…its like there’s a hole in his brain or something. Its the earnest thing, I guess…literal minded? Like I said, lovely person, good liberal, NOT a Nice Guy (tm) by any means, just super literal therefore a total turn-off. When I look at my female friends, they all have a dark sense of humor too, so its a trait that’s pretty important to me.

Honestly, all of these traits and or preferences I find in my female friends: book readers, sense of humor, politics, care with appearance to a certain degree, but not fussy, loves food, skepticism, etc. These are more reasonable expectations than deal breakers, but yeah, okay, some are definite deal breakers.

Comment #13: Thealogian  on  09/05  at  10:49 AM

Otherwise my chin whiskers would apparently make dating difficult for me.

It’s just so frustrating how every single person on earth has the same taste in partners.

Comment #14: junk science  on  09/05  at  10:51 AM

But that’s kind of the thing, isn’t it - dealbreakers are acceptable BECAUSE they’re different for everyone, so you don’t HAVE to suit everyone’s ideal. The flip side of the coin is that everyone is actually a lot happier if they have their dealbreakers and LISTEN to them rather than trying to date every incompatible person to be “nice”!

This is a really good point. One person’s deal-breaker is another person’s must-have. Hanging on to someone just to have someone around may be keeping *everyone* unhappy.

Is there still so much pressure to not be single that people (especially women) just do the polite smile thing all the time? That must be exhausting.

Comment #15: Vir Modestus  on  09/05  at  11:02 AM

I was just thinking that, chingona! I don’t mind about music - a passion for music, and particularly an ability to play it, is very sexy, but utter ambivalence wouldn’t be a dealbreaker in the slightest. Dress: meh, as long as he’s clean. Beards: I’m not a fan, but my chap has one because he’s too lazy to shave every day, and stubble abrades my face spectacularly.

My own brand of shallowness is that I would find it really hard to be with someone who used textspeak outside of text messages, or couldn’t tell “your” from “you’re”. If I were internet dating, I’m sure this would cut my pool of potential dates by about 90%. Fair enough! At least I’d know right from the first message if someone wasn’t for me.

Comment #16: MissPrism  on  09/05  at  11:04 AM

couldn’t tell “your” from “you’re”

I’m at the point where I sit up and notice when someone on the internet actually *can* tell the difference.

Comment #17: junk science  on  09/05  at  11:10 AM

And not wearing shit like sandals.

You wouldn’t dig the Northwest, then. Birks, Teva-y sport sandals and flip-flops/thongs are fairly common out here for both men and women. I’m not a flip-flop fan, but I do occasionally wear sandals of the other sorts.

Comment #18: Linnaeus  on  09/05  at  11:18 AM

I had a beard (admittedly, trimmed close to my face) for years, and my girlfriend at the time thought it was wonderful. It’s almost like different women have different deal-breakers, sheesh!

And just FYI, I got in on the ground floor with that shit - I didn’t grow a beard because it was cool, I MADE it cool. Fuckin’ A. And no, I don’t have a problem with my sexual partners not shaving their legs or armpits, nor with being seen in public with them. I think that it’s not so much that men with beards are unreasonable about that, and more that most men are unreasonable about that.

Um, anyway, I have much of the same deal-breakers already mentioned. Religion is one of the big ones. I was actually very, very nervous when I was first starting to date my current girlfriend, because I was very attracted to her but if she was religious that was going to be a major let-down. Fortunately, no. Crisis averted!

People who don’t want to get outside. I like going on walks, hikes and bike rides, and sitting around inside all day is not very attractive. I have no problem with enjoying indoor pursuits, I enjoy them myself, I just also want to be able to enjoy the outdoors with someone.

People who won’t eat vegetables/food with flavor. Seriously, I will happily tolerate some idiosyncratic pickiness (like not liking mushrooms or something), but not eating anything green or anything with a stronger flavor than a potato will put a serious crimp on my own joy if things ever get too far. I’ve watched such a situation from afar, and I couldn’t see how my friend was able to put up with it for as long as he did - he later said himself that it was very frustrating.

Politics, much like everyone else who has mentioned it: no Republicans. No Libertarians. And a catch-all rule, no Crazies.

Functioning Irony Detector and Sarcasm Detector are a must.

I probably have others, but it’s a bit more work to compile a list than I thought, and I have work to do today! Have a nice Labor Day, everyone.

Comment #19: grolby  on  09/05  at  11:21 AM

Because the other option—-making them spell out why a commitment isn’t going to happen—-implies that the things they don’t like about you are just objectively bad things.  And for someone else, they may not be.  For instance, a lot of folks don’t give a flying fuck if you have shitty taste in music.

One thing I always try to keep in mind with dealbreakers and whatnot is, “as you judge, so shall you be judged.” What I mean by that is that just as I have dealbreakers with respect to others, others will have dealbreakers with respect to me and that doesn’t that I or someone else are horrible people. Just different.

Part of the problem, though, is that we use language about dealbreakers that implies someone else’s preferences are objectively bad things, e.g., “shitty music” instead of “music I don’t like”, even when that’s not the intent.

Comment #20: Linnaeus  on  09/05  at  11:22 AM

Oh, I realized that my previous post sounds like I’m defensive about my beard, when I meant to be echoing the other commenters who are pointing out to phil zombi and any other whiners that just because one person doesn’t like something that describes you doesn’t mean you should get all butthurt and defensive.

Comment #21: grolby  on  09/05  at  11:23 AM

I’ve definitely been called shallow—by close friends, no less—for deciding that terrible taste in music was a dealbreaker.  I decided that after dating a guy whose favorite music was apparently the terrible music of five years before, and couldn’t even be coaxed to listen to a mix tape of something better for one damn drive.  Sorry, in all matters of taste and basic knowledge, it’s an absolute requirement that I never feel embarrassed for someone.

I really like beards, which do not (at least to me) feel funny to kiss.  What’s really painful is a guy who only bothers to shave every second or third day—I actually had to point this out to one guy even though my whole face was routinely red after he came over.  I do make fun of the beard though (his mustache is his “filter”).  My whole family, including me, expresses affection through near-constant teasing, and there is pretty much no earnestness unless someone dies.  It’s probably a great example of a dealbreaker, because I’m sure the same people who’d think I just have a mean sense of humor or am a bully are the same people I’d think are insufferably sensitive and have no sense of humor that I want to know any more about.  If they didn’t notice I’m making fun of myself just as much, they must not be paying attention, and who wants that?

I do have to raise my hand as a hairy lady with a beardy boyfriend, though.  I told him right away that my eyesight is so bad I can’t reliably shave my legs in the shower, so it has to be this whole separate production that frankly I don’t care much about.  If it’s really important to someone, I might make a point to do it slightly more often, early in the relationship, as a favor to him.  And I love my armpit hair, so it’s lucky for my boyfriend that he does too because I am not altering the maintenance schedule on that.

Comment #22: themmases  on  09/05  at  11:24 AM

#16-17: Relevant.

Comment #23: Hobbes  on  09/05  at  11:30 AM

Ha!  I was just coming to point out that I should have taken my soon-to-be-ex-husband’s love of Phish as a warning sign.  I mean, I don’t give a shit that he likes to smoke pot and listen to Phish, but I’m not going to do it with him!  And what the fuck is it with Phish fans and having to have EVERY SINGLE CONCERT EVER.  Huge fight in the car when we were first dating when I told him to turn off the Phish because I didn’t like it, and he was all, but does this mean we can’t listen to Phish in the car together EVER?!?!  I’m like, yup, the same way that I love a cappella music and you don’t so I can only listen to it when you’re not in the car.  Deal.  And grow up.  And stop smoking pot and listening to never-ending Phish.  And no one gives half a shit if you found elusive concert number eight million from 1992 because all of the songs sound the same but that’s okay because they also never end!

Ahem, some of these opinions may have grown on me during the course of the marriage.

Comment #24: Mimi  on  09/05  at  11:30 AM

Part of the problem, though, is that we use language about dealbreakers that implies someone else’s preferences are objectively bad things, e.g., “shitty music” instead of “music I don’t like”, even when that’s not the intent.

Please, let’s not go down this bullshit road. People should use language to express their opinion, because the alternative is endless mealy-mouthed bullshit. I could say that scallops are not to my particular taste, but fuck that. Scallops are gross. And I could say that I personally do not accept the premises of anti-choice beliefs, but fuck that, too. Anti-choicers are assholes. And I could say that I do not care for the sound of Linkin Park, but that’s bullshit. Linkin Park fucking blows.

I think I would add to my list of deal breakers, people who want to police language so that no one can express a strong opinion.

Comment #25: grolby  on  09/05  at  11:30 AM

She brings up the Frog Prince myth that is foisted on women—-especially in romantic comedies—-that the guy you find unappealing will, if you give him a chance, morph into Mr. Perfect.

Fair point, and true… but Finkel, once again, was well-dressed and groomed, looks like he’s in good shape, and didn’t give any other indications of social shortcomings other than, “OMG HE HAS AN UNACCEPTABLE HOBBY AND IS HAS FINAGLED HIMSELF INTO DATES WITH PEOPLE I KNOW!” In fact, she specifically complains that he hides in “hedge fund clothes,” basically stating that he’s gauchely started to invade the space of the “pretty people” by pretending to be someone he’s (supposedly) not.

I have all sorts of dealbreakers I’m not going to get into here. But my dealbreakers are my dealbreakers. I don’t try to dress it up as being something deep about me—I accept that I’m shallow, and that’s ok. When your entire life has been about, “doing things that are difficult and make you unhappy in order to secure a future payoff down the road,” it’s hard to date people and take a tack of, “this makes me happy right now, and if it doesn’t make me happy, I’m not going to pursue it” when it comes to relationships.

I can agree with the simply choosing not to date someone because of “dealbreakers” and still view Bereznak (or at least her pen-persona) as a bully and social malefactor.

Comment #26: Tyro  on  09/05  at  11:33 AM

Also: sandals. While I totally understand this dealbreaker, you’re getting into “get off my lawn!” territory. Sandals and flip-flops, on both men and women, is pretty much standard casual-wear (even for going out) among the under-35 set. I’m not saying your judgment is wrong on this one, but I pretty much accept that public standards of dress and fashion don’t agree with my own. Date who you’re going to date, but being judgey about people who go out wearing sandals is like criticizing people for going out to dinner without a suit and tie—that’s no longer the expected norm.

Comment #27: Tyro  on  09/05  at  11:38 AM

Yeah, Bereznak was pretty obviously a terrible human being, and Finkel is lucky to have gotten away with as little damage as he did.

Comment #28: Punditus Maximus  on  09/05  at  11:39 AM

/delurks

I really hated the fact that the whole Joe Finkel thing went from “The lady was being a jerk (by going on a second date and writing such an annoying article on of all things, a geek site) just because he didn’t fit her ideal” to “How dare she have standards!?!”  Then again, I really shouldn’t be too surprised given the Giz audience.

My dealbreakers were hard to suss out for years due to the mindset that I was lucky if any guy would look at me twice and do more than just fuck me while drunk and ignore me once sober, so it didn’t matter if we didn’t click because it was my fault anyway for being so ugly/weird/undateable.  It was after one last go round with someone who was my total opposite who wanted to force me into a change that I decided at 28 that having compatible standards were probably a good idea if I wanted to be happy in a relationship.

Though, I LOVE me some facial hair on a guy as long as it’s clean.  It’s totally a texture thing, I guess, the scratchiness against my cheek and so on and since I don’t bother with razors on anything by my underarms, it’s a fair deal.  And I’m pretty pet neutral, except for dogs, which never fail to freak me out.  I don’t hate cats, but I don’t go nuts over them either, so I really don’t care if a potential mate has one as long as they expect me to go all ga-ga over them (I’ll still help with basic care - feeding and cleaning of shitbox, etc). 

Oh yeah, food is a totally dealbreaker for me. I love going out to eat and I’d rather go alone than have to deal with someone who picks at his meal and doesn’t venture out beyond the bland.

I got really lucky, I guess, with my current beau.  Scratchy beard, sarcastic and snarky and geeky with no desire for kids and one really mellow cat, and he accepts me as I am.  I’m pretty pleased as punch.

/relurks

Comment #29: KnottyMissN  on  09/05  at  11:40 AM

Please, let’s not go down this bullshit road. People should use language to express their opinion, because the alternative is endless mealy-mouthed bullshit. I could say that scallops are not to my particular taste, but fuck that. Scallops are gross. And I could say that I personally do not accept the premises of anti-choice beliefs, but fuck that, too. Anti-choicers are assholes. And I could say that I do not care for the sound of Linkin Park, but that’s bullshit. Linkin Park fucking blows.

I think I would add to my list of deal breakers, people who want to police language so that no one can express a strong opinion.

I didn’t say anything about policing language; I couldn’t do that, nor do I want to. I voice strong opinions all of the time. I do think that context does matter in terms of how we express our opinions and there are better and worse ways to do that based on context. Granted, I should have made that clearer.

Comment #30: Linnaeus  on  09/05  at  11:47 AM

The only slack I’m willing to give Bereznak is that, as a writer, she’s taught to turn her personal experience into grist for the writing mill and, if necessary, to sell out friends, family, and anyone she meets for good copy. Plus, working for Gawker Media, she gains accolades by writing what gets the most hits and buzz. Lots of writers, being placed in the same situation, and knowing the outcome of writing what she wrote, would have made the exact same decision. I’m totally willing to chalk the episode up to a “pen persona” she’s adopted, but as a reader, I only know the “pen persona” not the “real” person (if any), so I have to judge based on what I have to go on.

I decided at 28 that having compatible standards were probably a good idea if I wanted to be happy in a relationship.

Interestingly, this was the precise age I had a similar revelation.

Comment #31: Tyro  on  09/05  at  11:48 AM

Hobbes, that cartoon’s hilarious, thank you!

I agree with everyone listing unadventurous eating as a dealbreaker. Trying a new cuisine, going to an interesting restaurant, or cooking something unusual (with or without success) are some of my favourite things to do as a couple. And while my own dataset is too small for statistical significance, I’d suggest there’s a correlation between being adventurous and sensual with food, and being adventurous and sensual with sex.

Comment #32: MissPrism  on  09/05  at  11:58 AM

I know intent is hard to see on the interwebs so maybe I should have phrased my comment differently. The early comments were more anti-beard and I was trying to be funny. Beard/no beard/gamer/geek/sports fan/book worm/etc. dating is not a right. If your date can’t stand the thing you love it’s probably not going to work out.

Comment #33: phil zombi  on  09/05  at  11:59 AM

I’m fine with the dealbreaker thing, although I’m not sure if there isn’t a category that is “negotiable” that might be there. I know someone who also had music as a big dealbreaker for her, then met a guy she liked who was indifferent to music. He appreciates her taste once exposed to it, but it isn’t a big deal for him. But he in no way limits her fun with music, so it didn’t end up a dealbreaker. Same with a friend who was way into food and swore of partners who can’t cook - she expected him to learn, and he did.  The word “dealbreaker” always seems to be a “this shows up in any way and out”.  (Which also clearly exist - the anti-choice stuff for instance in my case.)

I would see guys who were sloppy dressers and I would think, “And there’s someone who will never once want to go out to dinner just because the weather is nice.”

That said, I haven’t the slightest idea what the logic here is. How on earth are those two things related?

Comment #34: LC  on  09/05  at  12:02 PM

I think physical attraction is really important and women are discouraged from valuing it.  In the case of those couples where the woman doesn’t want to have sex often, I always wonder if she’s not very attracted to her husband/ boyfriend physically, but is ignoring it because she doesn’t want to be “shallow.”  Yes Gizmoders, I promise, it’s much nicer to date someone who’s really into you, than to date someone’s who’s been guilted into it.

On a completely different note, I’m gonna come right out and say it, beards (not stubble) are great for cunnilingus.
(Though I am not into that lumberjack look that’s hopefully on it’s way out.)

Comment #35: Isabella  on  09/05  at  12:12 PM

I have found the right person.  We’ve been together a long time.  But I still remember the good and bad dates, good and bad short-term and medium-term relationships, and it’s pretty clear what my dealbreakers are.

The first would have to be anyone who doesn’t have something he’s good at and really interested in.  It doesn’t have to be his job, doesn’t have to be lucrative even if it is, it doesn’t even have to be interesting to me, and it could change year to year, but a non-achiever, a time-puncher of life, is probably the biggest dealbreaker for me.

Anyone who buys into the male-female stereotypes, ugh, no, if for no other reason than that such stupidity will founder on the rocks of my personality.  Ditto religion and other woo.  I allow for a bit of superstition if it’s unobtrusive and inoffensive, e.g. tossing a few grains of salt over your left shoulder if you spill some.

No heart.  He doesn’t have to be soppy or sentimental, but should actually understand what a deep emotion is and understand passion, loss, commitment, anger, love from the inside.

Lack of empathy for others, including animals.

Lack of a wicked sense of humor.  If I have to explain too much it’s over and if I have to apologize I’m gonna be running fast the other way.  This seems contradictory to the “empathy” requirement but it’s not. 

Because I have musical training and my musical tastes are wide and flexible and ever-evolving, he has to at least be accepting of a lot of kinds of music.  Best for this is an actual musician, because they’re not afraid to like something of an “out” genre just because they’ll be judged on it—they usually trust their own judgment and don’t have to prove anything.

If you don’t have a sense of the aesthetic, don’t bother.  I don’t want to be the only one looking forward to a trip to the art museum.  And you don’t have to be fancily dressed but for crying out loud please know what to wear when, and have a wardrobe that isn’t essentially a uniform closet, and notice if I have dressed up for something.  This also encompasses cleanliness and an attention to smells, good and bad.

The beard thing, I really don’t care so long as it’s clean and taken-care-of.  Which doesn’t mean it has to be trimmed.

Sexually, if you’re done before I am and for you that means we’re done, you’re right.  We’re definitely done.

This excludes at least 75 percent of the men I’ve ever met, probably more.  But so what?

Comment #36: oldfeminist  on  09/05  at  12:14 PM

I could say that scallops are not to my particular taste, but fuck that. Scallops are gross. And I could say that I personally do not accept the premises of anti-choice beliefs, but fuck that, too. Anti-choicers are assholes. And I could say that I do not care for the sound of Linkin Park, but that’s bullshit. Linkin Park fucking blows.

I would accept the second and third opinions as perfectly valid, the second for obvious reasons. You could defend them in a meaningful way and bring someone over to your point of view with a good argument. The first is simply too broad to strike me as meaningful, as are most opinions about specific food ingredients. One chef’s preparation of scallops may be legitimately terrible, and someone else might cook them really well. Someone telling me “mushrooms are gross,” for example, when they happen to be one of my favorite ingredients, would quickly get on my shitlist, because they literally have no basis for declaring their opinion more valid than anyone else’s, unlike a pro-choicer or a Linkin Park hater. All they’re really saying, and all they really can say, is that they don’t like mushrooms, and that’s all I need to hear.

Comment #37: junk science  on  09/05  at  12:17 PM

Please, let’s not go down this bullshit road. People should use language to express their opinion, because the alternative is endless mealy-mouthed bullshit. I could say that scallops are not to my particular taste, but fuck that. Scallops are gross.

I didn’t say anything about policing language; I couldn’t do that, nor do I want to. I voice strong opinions all of the time. I do think that context does matter in terms of how we express our opinions and there are better and worse ways to do that based on context. Granted, I should have made that clearer.

The broader issue here though is that women are constantly being told to soften their language and not offend people.  For example, <a >this post from Feministe</a> about how women use significantly more exclamation points in their emails to avoid giving offense.  The idea that women in particular can’t say, “I don’t like scallops,” without catching the “That wasn’t very nice!” vibe is really pervasive.

(Side note: those comments on Sady’s post defending calling Alyssa Bereznak an asshole because she wouldn’t date a guy with an interest in Magic?  UGH.)

Comment #38: FashionablyEvil  on  09/05  at  12:18 PM

Er, this post

Comment #39: FashionablyEvil  on  09/05  at  12:22 PM

The broader issue here though is that women are constantly being told to soften their language and not offend people.  For example, <a >this post from Feministe</a> about how women use significantly more exclamation points in their emails to avoid giving offense.  The idea that women in particular can’t say, “I don’t like scallops,” without catching the “That wasn’t very nice!” vibe is really pervasive.

That’s a good point, and it’s something I try to be aware of myself. Now that I think about it more, my prior comment that raised grolby’s hackles was overly vague and I didn’t really use a good example. I’m definitely not saying that people have to go to herculanean efforts to avoid offending people. It really wouldn’t be a big deal if someone told me that a band I liked “sucked”, in of itself. And yes, I will (and do) say that certain people are assholes.

What I’m mostly thinking of are the times I’ve seen in which voicing strong preferences in strong language was used as an excuse to be cruel or mean to people when it’s not really warranted, specifically in the context of dating and relationships. But that doesn’t mean that I think strong opinions are abusive.

Comment #40: Linnaeus  on  09/05  at  12:30 PM

I am amazed no one has mentioned the only absolute dealbreaker I have:  tobacco. 

I’d like to think I’m fairly open minded, so I’ll at least talk with people who are different, and I’ll see what can develop, even with someone who may initially seem the most diametrically opposed to me as possible.  I’ll admit that I don’t expect anything to happen, but I wouldn’t expect anything from someone who appears to be the perfect match on paper either—you never know where the sparks will happen.

That said, I’m rather allergic to nicotine.  Serious repiratory difficulties—and medically I just don’t think living with a smoker would work out.

Comment #41: James  on  09/05  at  12:47 PM

James @ 41, I agree.  Smoking is a dealbreaker for me, even for just casual hook-ups.  I could justify it because I’m so highly allergic to second-hand smoke, but honestly, even if I were “normal” it would still be a dealbreaker for me.  I see no point in kissing someone if I don’t enjoy it.

Comment #42: bananacat  on  09/05  at  12:56 PM

On another note, something that irks me (but doesn’t necessarily rise to level of “dealbreaker”) is the question I’ve gotten on a few first dates: “why are you still single?”  Apparently, at my advanced age (late 30s), I should already be shacked up with someone and because I’m not, that’s weird or something. I get that as one gets older, the greater the likelihood that they are or have been recently in a long-term relationship (and I have been in a couple of those), but it still grates a little to be asked that.

Comment #43: Linnaeus  on  09/05  at  01:04 PM

I have several dealbreakers that pertain to sex:

1) I wouldn’t intentionally set up a test like this, but if I can’t or don’t want to have sex for some reason, and he asks me to give him oral (with the implication that there will be no reciprocation, hence why I’m not having sex in the first place), then I will probably never hook up with him again.  It demonstrates that he doesn’t realize that sex is supposed to be good for me too.  If he thinks sex is a favor that I’m doing to make him feel good and that asking for oral is somehow less of a favor to ask, then that it is a dealbreaker.  At the very least, if he thinks that a penis in my mouth would feel as good to me as a penis in my vagina, then the is woefully confused about how to make sex enjoyable for me.

2) If I say that I’m not into something, and he playfully tries to do it anyway, I’ll tell him to leave and won’t see him again.  If I say that I don’t like something and he continues to nag me about, then it’s over with him.  I wouldn’t pressure a man into doing something he doesn’t want to do, and I expect him to show me the same respect.  I have no tolerance for people who ignore me and don’t take me seriously.  There was one time a guy gently spanked me, no big deal because a lot of people like that, but I simply don’t like it and told him I’m not into that.  He thought it would be hilarious to keep attempting to do it.  He wouldn’t stop chasing me around until I yelled at him.  He’s lucky that I let him put on his clothes before I kicked him out the door.  I’ve also met several men who try this with tickling, but to a lesser extreme.

Also, if I can’t tryst someone around my cat, then I can’t get serious with him to the point of moving in.  Being mean to animals, children, servers, or anybody else who is in a vulnerable position is also a giant red flag for potentially bigger issues.

Those are my only “real” dealbreakers.  I have a bunch more but they only apply to men who would never want to date me anyway.  I’d never have to break something off with a Patriarch support, because nothing would ever get started to begin with.

Comment #44: bananacat  on  09/05  at  01:07 PM

I can’t stilfle my opinion about acupuncture for hours

This. Because it’s a symptom of a larger problem: if you apply standards of evidence and truth to certain people’s beliefs, they’ll get bent out of shape about it.

It’s one thing if someone responds to your pointing out that acupuncture is obvious bullshit by saying “Yeah, it was probably more just relaxing and being taken seriously that helped iron out that problem, but I’ll still go back,” or something along those lines. Or as with my two close friends who are very Christian, and just shrug and say “If it’s not for you, I’m not gonna get up in your grill about it.” Whatever keeps you happy. But people who insist that woo/god is REAL are total dealbreakers.

And the notion of dealbreaker goes beyond just dating. Many of us are married or in long-term relationships, and something that doesn’t get talked about so much is couple-friends. Adults are busy and it’s very difficult to find other couples where the chemistry works out all four ways—we have one couple we know socially where the wife is delightful but the husband can only talk about college football. And another where the husband is awesome but the wife is a professional acupuncturist and Reiki “healer” and will not not talk about “energy”. Or another where our kids just love each other but the other couple are aggressively obnoxious about being vegans and there’s only one restaurant where they won’t demand to see the manager about whether the vegan food is cooked with the same utensils as the non-vegan food (seriously!) and that one restaurant is absolutely horrible. Seitan is not worth a good play date.

On the original topic, back when I was dating the biggest one for me was the inability to enjoy something unironically or without detachment. And tobacco.

Comment #45: felagund  on  09/05  at  01:21 PM

“why are you still single?”

And how do they even know you’re “still” single? You could have broken up with someone last week.

Comment #46: junk science  on  09/05  at  01:22 PM

Pretty much my only dealbreakers are:

1) Anti-intellectualism, anti-science, not liking to read and learn about things.
2) Insulting me, condescending to me, constantly crapping on stuff I’m interested in or excited about.
3) Being a self-important pompous judgmental ass.
4) Smoking. I just can’t deal with the smell.
5) TEH DRAMA. It exhausts me.

Comment #47: snowmentality  on  09/05  at  01:23 PM

I am amazed no one has mentioned the only absolute dealbreaker I have:  tobacco.

Not my only absolute dealbreaker, but that’s definitely one for me. It just doesn’t come up as much as it would have in decades past, because not as many people smoke these days. College was an exception, of course, since a lot of college kids haven’t grown out of the “smoking is cool!” mindset. It was always disappointing to be talking to someone, feeling like you’re really hitting it off, and then suddenly they pull out a cigarette and start blowing that vile shit in your face. Happened ALL THE TIME in college.

Comment #48: Triplanetary  on  09/05  at  01:31 PM

The anger that women’s dealbreakers provoke shows how many people think a boyfriend is more akin to an employer than a companion. “You’re not supposed to LIKE him!”

It ties in with those nasty, stupid ideas about women and men being from different planets such that the best they can aim for is guessing vaguely at each other’s meanings via a self-help-book interpreter.

Comment #49: MissPrism  on  09/05  at  01:34 PM

To begin with, I believe anyone has a right to reject anyone else for whatever reason they like - good reasons, bad reasons, indifference. But to clear up a couple of misconceptions over beards ...

Firstly there is no reason to suppose beards are any cleaner or dirtier than being clean-shaven. Sure there’s those with filthy beards, but that guy who looks like he spilled a litre of filthy engine oil over his beard three weeks ago is probably just as filthy in other ways too. And a filthy beard lets you know you should be upwind of him without getting downwind first.

Secondly I wouldn’t dream of expecting anyone to remove (or not remove) any hair. Hairy legs aren’t off-putting (unless you have eight of ‘em) and are preferable to stubbly legs.

Finally there can be some pretty good reasons for not shaving. Shaving 2-3 times daily to avoid getting unbearably scratchy is tedious at best. And let me assure you that dragging a razor blade over psoriasis sores isn’t much fun!

Comment #50: veryz  on  09/05  at  01:38 PM

The broader issue here though is that women are constantly being told to soften their language and not offend people.

Fair point, but that’s the way we were raised. “Live and let live” is the ideal. Somebody who rambles on about how “stupid” some car or food is will eventually turn his or her ire to me and my tastes. grolby’s opinion of scallops is irrelevant outside of grolby’s personal taste, which is itself only relevant when grolby is choosing food for him/herself or when someone trying to make food to accommodate grolby’s taste.

I know, deep down, that the earnest sorts of values we were taught were not even really believed by the people teaching them, much less being any sort of values that actually get you anywhere in the world, but I’m going to stick with them. Yes, I’m going to judge you for spouting off with value judgments on things where that don’t have any inherent value. “Scallops suck!” is the sort of thing espoused by people either looking for everyone to nod along, or someone who wants to pick a fight and draw attention to themselves by getting into a big “argument” over whether or not scallops (or Hondas, or whatever) do, in fact, suck or not. Part of being an adult is being able to separate “not my thing” with “it is inherently sucky.”

I am amazed no one has mentioned the only absolute dealbreaker I have:  tobacco.

Honestly, these days, smoking is kind of a rarity among our generation. I can think of only one regular smoker acquaintance in my social circle, outside of an occasional “party cigarette” person or two.

Comment #51: Tyro  on  09/05  at  01:38 PM

Smoking is a problem for me too, but such a high percentage of lesbians around here seem to be smokers that it’s one of those things I feel I have to compromise on. My girlfriend has tried for years to quit and can’t. It’s nothing I would leave her for, but it’s definitely not ideal.

Comment #52: junk science  on  09/05  at  01:43 PM

I disagree about beards - love them, hate being stubble-scratched.
Cats - I know people who are so allergic their eyes swell shut and they get hives, so someone with a cat would be a dealbreaker for them.
And Sady is so right about bikes.  My husband got into them recently, and now he spends every minute of his spare time with his bike-riding group, or going to bed early for tomorrow morning’s ride, or because he’s tired from today’s ride. He’s secretary of the city club, and wants to go to parties where nobody talks about anything but bikes.  I can’t even tell the people apart because I have the same conversation with all of them:  :What?  You don’t ride?  Why not?  It’s the most fun ever?”  “Because I’m afraid of falling, and traffic, and falling in traffic, and getting another broken shoulder after doc says never break that shoulder again because it would be worse next time.”  So this would be a total dealbreaker if I hadn’t already married him when it happened.

Comment #53: gretchen  on  09/05  at  01:46 PM

And for some reason most of the men I know, even though they read a lot, seldom or never read fiction.  I don’t know why that is.

Comment #54: gretchen  on  09/05  at  01:47 PM

And for some reason most of the men I know, even though they read a lot, seldom or never read fiction.  I don’t know why that is.

This is one of those things where there is no “why”—it just “is”... it’s because the men you know are like most other men. Men, statistically, read less fiction, and the market for fiction leans heavily in favor of women. I think this deserves a pandagon post of its own.

Comment #55: Tyro  on  09/05  at  01:52 PM

LC @34: If they can’t bother to take the time to look nice, making the effort to leave the house just because is off the table, I’m sure. Some of us are doers and some of us are layabouts. I’m a doer. I can’t be with a total layabout. Indifference to clothes is the universal signal of the layabout.

Comment #56: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  02:00 PM

And for some reason most of the men I know, even though they read a lot, seldom or never read fiction.  I don’t know why that is.

I don’t think there’s a single “why”, but I might hazard a guess that it could be partly because non-fiction works deal with fields in which men tend to predominate and are fields that men are more expected to know something about. Perhaps it’s an artifact of that old gendered division in which men deal with the sphere of the external and women deal with the sphere of the internal (which gets extended to “fanciful” pursuits like fiction). I know that doesn’t account for the considerable numbers of male artists and fiction authors, but as I said, it’s a bit of a guess.

I read considerably more non-fiction than fiction, but I’m trained as an historian, so it comes with the territory. When I have time for fun reading, though, I do read fiction.

Comment #57: Linnaeus  on  09/05  at  02:02 PM

Re:Tyro
I agree.  There’s a difference between “I don’t like it” and “This sucks.”  Guilty pleasures are often things I objectively think suck because they’re poorly executed but that I like.  Or things that I can agree are worthy of praise, like, say Jazz, that I just don’t like.  Having someone saying that everything they don’t like sucks gets old, and that goes for other men.  It eventually starts to sound like a general negativity that I just don’t enjoy being around.

Comment #58: Satanicpanic  on  09/05  at  02:06 PM

I’m a total layabout. I used to think this would compromise my datability, but as with all things, it turns out that there are others out there who are into that.

Comment #59: Triplanetary  on  09/05  at  02:06 PM

I’ve never noticed any association between dressiness and doer-hood. Maybe it’s cos almost everyone I know is a scientist - we tend toward the shabby, but you can’t be a layabout and get far.

Comment #60: MissPrism  on  09/05  at  02:07 PM

Some of us are doers and some of us are layabouts. I’m a doer. I can’t be with a total layabout. Indifference to clothes is the universal signal of the layabout.

Honestly, just stating sandals-wearing as a “turn off” makes a lot more sense than trying to dress is up with some kind of explanation about how it means someone is a “layabout.” Just own it as a “it looks slovenly to me and I don’t like it in a significant other.” I tend to chalk up this kind of reasoning to an excess of “literary thinking” where the character who’s a “doer” in a book will have some article or clothing or accessory that is symbolic of his status as a “doer,” in so we decide we want to populate our lives with these literary characters who display these symbols as metaphors for their lives.

I go out all the time, and what do I see? Dudes walking about in short sleeved shirts (sometimes tshirts, sometimes polos) with cargo shorts and sandals. It’s a fashion disaster, but insofar as it’s become a public norm, I can’t view it as a sign of being a “layabout.”

Comment #61: Tyro  on  09/05  at  02:09 PM

In the hipster social circles where I end up traveling, NOT wearing cargo shorts, a faded obscure band Tshirt, and flipflops would be the sartorial kiss of death. If I dress nicely, people will look at me funny.

Comment #62: felagund  on  09/05  at  02:26 PM

“And there’s someone who will never once want to go out to dinner just because the weather is nice.”

That is so weird to me.  I can’t imagine ever wanting to go out to dinner just because the weather is nice.  An absolutely unthinkable thought.  I’m glad I ended up with someone who didn’t have that dealbreaker.  Hopefully.  Maybe it’s roiling beneath the surface and I just never thought to investigate!

Comment #63: FlipYrWhig  on  09/05  at  02:27 PM

Where I live there’s an increasing standard about back hair and leg hair. More and more guys wax their back and legs because otherwise there’s no way to get laid. And that in turn is shaping perceptions. Guys are starting to internalize that it looks off because they don’t see it around as often as they used to, so sometimes they have it removed not to improve their chances but just because they think they look better, for the same reason they go get a regular haircut.

Comment #64: Baruk  on  09/05  at  02:27 PM

My list of deal-breakers is pretty irrelevant, since I’ve been married going on 20 years - but I still have one.

1) Reading broadly. If you don’t read, often and for pleasure, and a wide variety of material, we are not going to get on.
2) Tolerance of my eclecticism - I do a lot of different things, and try out even more: martial arts, knitting, playing the organ, writing, baking, sewing…etc.,etc.. I’ve seen plenty of guys who will condescend to a woman doing the “woman thing” or contrariwise to a woman martial artist - not acceptable. You don’t have to do all this stuff with me, but if you make fun of me for doing it, it’s not on. (My husband has his own extremely lengthy list of hobbies, only of few of which coincide with mine.)
3) Curiosity. If you don’t have it in gobs, you’re not going to get on with anyone in my family, let alone with me.
4) Appreciation of puns and word play. I can deal with earnest, though I prefer a good sense of humor, but if you don’t like language play, we’re not getting on. (I still treasure the comment where Jeff Fecke told me I put the quip in sesquipedalian.)
5) Cats. Love them all you want, but if you own them, I’m going to be visiting you about once a year, max, hopped to the gills on Benedryl.

Comment #65: Tapetum  on  09/05  at  02:31 PM

“Shallow” is a ladies-only adjective, just as “strident” and “shrill” were before they got caught out.  On rare occasions I’ll hear it applied to guys but only very ironically.  People seem to think that an erection wants what it wants, but if you’re a vagina, you can just lie there and accept anything, so why don’t you.  More male-supremacist crap.

My sister has been married to a man for ten years and has a child but still feels haunted about a sweet guy she dated briefly in the 90s.  She rejected him because he didn’t read anything, not even newspapers or comic books.  He pleaded that he loved her and would do anything for her and wouldn’t she please accept him.  She still feels awful and a bit guilty.  I daresay all the dudes who rejected her (and me) over the years for things we couldn’t control aren’t suffering.

Comment #66: Unree  on  09/05  at  02:32 PM

It depends on what you’re doing. I live in Colorado, where people tend to be pretty outdoorsy. You can’t say that someone who is going hiking or mountain biking or kayaking every weekend and after work three days a week is a layabout, but he or she might look kind of schlubby. Or wear sandals and shorts. I’m not saying you have to like it. I’m just saying I don’t think you can make a generalization like “layabout” vs. “doer” from what someone wears. (And yes, being outdoorsy doesn’t mean you have to look like shit. I work with several women who rock climb and are all bad ass and still look great, in a not-fussy way, and it would be fine to be outdoorsy and still hold men to an aesthetic standard.)

Comment #67: chingona  on  09/05  at  02:34 PM

Re:  Reading Ficiton:  Does science fiction count? wink

Re:  Reading Fiction:  I read fiction earlier this year, I read Representative Ryan’s budget proposal.  That was certainly fiction!

Re:  Shaving and beards.  I grew a beard when I was a freshman in high school; it was better than shaving with acne.  It looked rather good (Think King George V type of trim) and is softer than one would think.  I’ve kept it…  I’ve had to shave it off a few times, and without the beard my face just doesn’t look right.  Now, the biggest hassle is with the dentist and latex gloves; accidentally pulled beard and moustache hairs sting!

Comment #68: James  on  09/05  at  02:36 PM

“I’m fine with being friends with someone who feels they couldn’t have an abortion themselves, but the second they judge someone else, we’re done.”

That really resonates, strangely enough, with why I had such a strong negative reaction to Bereznak’s piece. Because I’m totally fine with someone who doesn’t like Magic, who thinks it’s bizarre, and doesn’t want to date anyone who’s super into it—have whatever dealbreakers you want! What I’m really not okay with is someone who projects their personal dealbreakers onto reality and takes it as a given that playing Magic is objectively shame-worthy and abhorred by all woman-kind (“Mothers: hide your daughters!”). It feels to me like any other kind of bigotry: their view of the world gets to be objectively true and other views are abominations.

Now if Bereznak had been down on Magic and Magic fans for their raging misogyny problem, then it’d be a different story.

Comment #69: heresiarch  on  09/05  at  02:38 PM

I’ve had a gigantic beard for almost two years, and it seems to be more popular with women than unpopular, but I’ve never been able to convince any of the women I’ve dated to stop shaving, either…

Comment #70: Frogisis  on  09/05  at  02:42 PM

Apologies for blinkered hetero-speak up there @70.  Probably what I said is inaccurate out of that context.

Comment #71: Unree  on  09/05  at  02:43 PM

Funny how one of my deal breakers is someone who is too obsessed with policing the clothing choices of others* and that I’d actually prefer someone who dresses casually/slovenly as long as basic hygiene is observed.  With the former, I’d feel I’m walking on eggshells being minutely scrutinized by someone who is eagerly looking for a misstep or someone who has authoritarian tendencies. 

I may have picked up this attitude in high school where it was commonly perceived that there was a reverse correlation between dressing well and intellectualism** and in college where criticizing others for their fashion choices would actually get one yelled at as a “bourgeois capitalist tool”. 


* Incidentally, I felt the Southwest airline flight attendant’s decision to kick Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day off his flight for wearing baggy pants was wrong and felt Southwest did the bare minimum by immediately apologizing for actions which IMHO should have never happened in the first place. 

** Nicely outlined in an online essay about why Nerds’ disinterest in dressing up and otherwise emulating the more popular non-Nerds means the Nerd is not “wasting his/her time” on inconsequentials like fashion choices or otherwise mindlessly conforming to the non-nerd popular/beautiful people in most US mainstream high schools. 

Yes, I’m going to judge you for spouting off with value judgments on things where that don’t have any inherent value. “Scallops suck!” is the sort of thing espoused by people either looking for everyone to nod along, or someone who wants to pick a fight and draw attention to themselves by getting into a big “argument” over whether or not scallops (or Hondas, or whatever) do, in fact, suck or not. Part of being an adult is being able to separate “not my thing” with “it is inherently sucky.”

Agreed.  IME, someone who makes such value judgments on things which are inherently subjective tend to either be folks who haven’t grown out of their adolescent years and/or are looking to pick a fight with anyone who holds a contrary opinion. 

Recently, I had to explain to an older friend about how his telling strangers or casual acquaintances that their tastes in subjective areas such as music, food, etc “sucks” in earnest is one of the critical reasons why he’s become increasingly socially isolated…..most people aren’t willing to put up with that shit.  What’s more interesting is how I’ve observed this behavior is sometimes off-putting even to those who agreed with him…but felt the manner he was conveying his opinion was extremely rude and uncalled for.

Comment #72: exholt  on  09/05  at  02:54 PM

Come over here, phil.  I *like* beards.

Comment #73: Older  on  09/05  at  02:56 PM

The anti-dealbreaker philosophy just makes no sense.  If I wouldn’t be close friends with someone (and, obviously, find him attractive as well), how on earth would a relationship ever work?  I wouldn’t develop a friendship with a person who shares none of my preferences, because there would be nothing we could do together, which is kind of what differentiates a friend from an acquaintance.  This is especially important for things that I do on a regular basis - like, say, eat.  If we can’t agree on a restaurant or cook dinner together, that is a major problem because we both need to eat.

That said, the only absolute dealbreaker I’ve ever had involves lack of openness/respect.  My SO plays video games, while I can’t even make a character walk properly.  I paint and play several instruments, while he can’t draw a straight line.  That’s fine, because we both need “alone time” once in a while, and we support each other’s hobbies.  As long as he doesn’t play to the exclusion of everything else, I’m perfectly fine with him playing games; I’m happy that he enjoys it and I don’t disparage him.  Likewise, he enjoys my artistic efforts and occasionally asks me to play piano while he’s playing games.  If I told him that he’s childish for playing video games or he told me I shouldn’t bother painting because I suck, that would (and should) be a dealbreaker.  Of course, we’re otherwise almost identical, so that helps.

Openness to each others’ tastes enriches lives, too.  When we started dating, I didn’t like Irish music and he didn’t like Sleater-Kinney, but now they’re on both of our top rated playlists. In my opinion, that’s the major benefit of having a partner: I have someone with whom to share the things I love and I expand my horizons.  Kind of like what happens with…friendship.

Gotta say, though, I don’t understand the clothes thing.  Why does indifference to clothes matter?  If your partner can’t be bothered to dress appropriately for work/nice restaurants/symphony concerts, or I suppose if you are a fashion designer, that’s one thing.  But, seriously, it’s a dealbreaker if your partner prefers nondescript casual clothes in casual settings, or wears shorts/sandals AT ALL?? And it’s an indication that they’re a layabout? Yesterday, we both threw on shorts and sandals to go to a blues festival in the ridiculous heat/to leave the house “just because”.  And ditto Miss Prism on the science/casual clothing.

But, of course, that’s the point: we all have our own pet peeves and, thus, our own dealbreakers.

Comment #74: Kirjava  on  09/05  at  02:56 PM

If you take offense at what I don’t shave because of what you feel compelled to shave/feel guilty for not shaving, that is so very much YOUR problem.

Comment #75: Dr. Psycho  on  09/05  at  02:58 PM

“Shallow” is overwhelmingly a female-directed insult. Stereotypical femininity itself is enough to get you called “shallow” in some circles.

Comment #76: Lindsay Beyerstein  on  09/05  at  03:03 PM

@64 Luke123

“Looks diseased”? You mean you wouldn’t date a zombie with half her face rotting off?

Seriously, dude, what kind of nonsense is that? You surely know you can’t tell if someone has HIV or gonorrhea simply by looking at them.

Comment #77: redheadedfemme  on  09/05  at  03:07 PM

(Side note: those comments on Sady’s post defending calling Alyssa Bereznak an asshole because she wouldn’t date a guy with an interest in Magic?  UGH.)

I think that’s a misreading of the comments on Sady’s post.  99% are totally on board with dealbreakers, and that people shouldn’t date those that they don’t want to, for any reason or no reason.  They’re not calling Alyssa Bereznak an asshole for not dating him.  They are calling her an asshole for what she wrote about it.  They are calling her an asshole for making of this guy for having this interest.  They are not calling her an asshole for saying that interest in magic is a deal breaker for her, but for universalizing her preference, for saying that it should be a deal breaker for all women everywhere.  She claimed that leaving it out of his profile was “a lie” equivalent to leaving out kids or marriage.  Which is ridiculous and showing more than a little bit of entitlement: the attitude that it would be right and proper that the world be arranged to cater to her preferences, and shock and horror on learning that it isn’t.  (Maybe the standard ambient sexism and gender roles feed into this reaction.  If she feels guilty for not giving the guy a chance based on “shallow” reason, one way to deal with that is to universalize that reason, rather than accepting that it’s okay for her not to like him for her own personal reasons.  She doesn’t owe him a second chance (er, third chance, I suppose).)

Now, granted, people yelling at her on the internet generally stick to base insults coupled with horrible sexism and reinforcement of gender roles.  Elsewhere, there certainly are lots attacking here for not dating him.  I just don’t see much of those responses on Sady’s post.  It is certainly worth calling out those responses, but that doesn’t mean she’s not an asshole.  It just means she’s an asshole that’s very good at provoking sexist blowhards.  (Not that that’s particularly hard on the Internet.)

Comment #78: wnoise  on  09/05  at  03:07 PM

@76, have you ever heard a guy described as shallow without extra fuss implying that a man can’t really be that way?  Maybe it happens, but I haven’t.  Even if you have, what percentage of the time does “shallow” get pasted onto a woman compared to a man?

Another anecdatum from heteroland: “Give him a chance,” to a woman who rejects a man that a friend offered her.  I heard it a lot when I was single.  Implication is she’s arbitrary and unreasonable for having some dealbreaker.

Comment #79: Unree  on  09/05  at  03:09 PM

Beards are a dealbreaker for me, but I don’t take offense at them. Keeping a well-groomed beard is way more work than leg-shaving, anyway.

Saying that beards are a dealbreaker is not tantamount to saying that beards are unattractive. Lots of women (and men) are crazy about facial hair. I know lots of handsome men who sport beards. I’m just not into that look/feel.

There are guys who aren’t into me because I’m short. That doesn’t mean that I’m ugly, or that even the guys who only date Amazons think I’m ugly. I’m just not their type. Degustibus non est disputandum.

Comment #80: Lindsay Beyerstein  on  09/05  at  03:10 PM

I didn’t say anything about policing language; I couldn’t do that, nor do I want to. I voice strong opinions all of the time. I do think that context does matter in terms of how we express our opinions and there are better and worse ways to do that based on context. Granted, I should have made that clearer.

Ok, I used a bad phrase, sorry. My point was not that people shouldn’t make an effort to be kind - I think that’s obvious, and Amanda said as much directly when she pointed out that she didn’t reject anyone by saying “No, because beards or gross,” or “your taste in music sucks.” Only an asshole would reject someone in such a way.

What annoys me is what I perceive as the insistence that we let this contextual kindness creep into and dilute our everyday discourse about the things we like and things we care about. It’s annoying because there’s this admonition - which you did express - that stating some opinion as a bold statement on the quality of a thing somehow gives the impression that this is an objective fact. I think that’s bullshit, and it’s insulting to the intelligence of the people you interact with. Of course my feelings about scallops aren’t objective fact; no one who has any understanding of language would actually take me to mean that they are objectively gross, and anyone who thinks that I think it’s a statement of objective fact is reading way too much into it. But that’s how I feel, and I want to give my opinions and feelings some force, just as I want the people around me to give their feelings and opinions some force. Because otherwise, what the fuck is there to talk about?

So every now and then Amanda will mention a band I’ve enjoyed as an example of music that sucks. And sometimes I bristle a bit, but that’s a much better engagement than I get from mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy silliness like “I don’t really care for Band X myself, but other people might like them, and that’s cool.” Booooring. The way I see it, when people talk about what they think is great and what they think is terrible and WHY, that’s what makes their opinions worth hearing about and that’s what makes discussion and argument intellectually engaging. There’s a reason that really good film and music critics have strong opinions, and state them directly: because that’s what makes it interesting. Waffling up front about how “Oh, this is just my opinion,” is both boring and, to me, betrays some level of intellectual cowardice. If you don’t have a strong opinion, fine, but if you do - TRY AND SELL IT TO ME, DAMN IT. Act like you give a damn.

Fair point, but that’s the way we were raised. “Live and let live” is the ideal. Somebody who rambles on about how “stupid” some car or food is will eventually turn his or her ire to me and my tastes. grolby’s opinion of scallops is irrelevant outside of grolby’s personal taste, which is itself only relevant when grolby is choosing food for him/herself or when someone trying to make food to accommodate grolby’s taste.

No, you’ve entirely missed the point, which might be partly my fault for being too general in my examples. The point is not to express, context free, every opinion one has about anything, because yes, that would be boorish. But I am also not out to criticize YOUR TASTE for its own sake. I am simply saying that, when, as people do, we have a discussion about music, or food, or last night’s episode of Mad Men, I want to hear people’s feelings, and I want them to have some goddamn conviction. And I think that this wide-eyed concern about disclaiming one’s “subjectivity” is unnecessary and weak.

Shit, you could say that my feelings about music are irrelevant outside of my personal taste, which is only itself relevant when I am choosing music to listen for myself to listen to or when someone else is putting together a mix tape for me. But that would sound stupid, since it contains the presumption that people don’t (and ought not to) discuss and argue about the art that they enjoy.

“Scallops suck!” is the sort of thing espoused by people either looking for everyone to nod along, or someone who wants to pick a fight and draw attention to themselves by getting into a big “argument” over whether or not scallops (or Hondas, or whatever) do, in fact, suck or not. Part of being an adult is being able to separate “not my thing” with “it is inherently sucky.”

Seriously? Those are the only reasons you can think of that someone might state an emphatic opinion? Because they’re an asshole? I kind of think you need to examine that last sentence, because IMO, part of being an adult is understanding how people use language, and not going out of the way to disclaim one’s subjectivity before expressing an opinion is sort of a standard use of language. And if that sounds like a mean thing to say, let me just point out that you’re calling me an asshole.

Comment #81: grolby  on  09/05  at  03:18 PM

If she feels guilty for not giving the guy a chance based on “shallow” reason, one way to deal with that is to universalize that reason, rather than accepting that it’s okay for her not to like him for her own personal reasons.

That’s a good observation and I think took a lot of empathy for her on your part that I wasn’t able to muster. Women, especially, are taught so much not to be shallow that I’m sure many women instead convince themselves that their “shallow” preferences are really not shallow at are but instead are universal, moral standards of behavior for civilized people. That could even be an interesting view into so-called “mean girl” behavior, as well.

Comment #82: Tyro  on  09/05  at  03:18 PM

But that’s kind of the thing, isn’t it - dealbreakers are acceptable BECAUSE they’re different for everyone, so you don’t HAVE to suit everyone’s ideal.

No!  Noooooo!  Dealbreakers are acceptable because people have the right to decide who they have sex with- they don’t have to have an excuse for not sleeping with somebody.  Nobody’s entitled to sex, the idea that women have to justify themselves by saying “well, some other woman will have sex with that guy, so it doesn’t have to be my job” is horrifying.  It’s not a woman’s goddam job to worry about whether a man’s penis is going to be sad if she doesn’t screw him.  It’s completely irrelevant whether someone else is going to find him fuck-worthy or not.

Comment #83: Nimravid  on  09/05  at  03:20 PM

@85 Luke123

Then what’s the point of listing it at all? I don’t understand what you’re trying to get at here, other than sounding like (to be frank) a selfish jackass.

Comment #84: redheadedfemme  on  09/05  at  03:24 PM

Re: tobacco: I’ve gotten desperate enough that I’ve had to take that off the dealbreaker list, but I’d prefer non-smoking. I’m fine with pot unless the person in question is a walking stereotype.

Lindsay #81: That doesn’t mean men can’t be shallow. My attractiveness standards for women skew uncomfortably high, and that largely because of only two women I’ve known. It annoys the shit out of me.

Finally: define “evil humor”—are we talking “enjoys transgressive humor with dirty words and taboo subjects”, “sadistic bastard who can reel off Tom Swifties with a frequency that would make Carrot Top ill”, or “revels to an unhealthy degree in the schadenfreude brought on by particularly overwhelming displays of karmic justice”?

Comment #85: BrianX  on  09/05  at  03:25 PM

redheadedfemme - that’s kind of his schtick.

Comment #86: grolby  on  09/05  at  03:26 PM

@Luke: Since this is a thread about dating and the lines you don’t want to cross your random splurge of opinion on your personal boundaries of one-night flings is off topic and irrelevant. Contribute something applicable or go away.

Also, if I can’t tryst someone around my cat, then I can’t get serious with him to the point of moving in.

Fantastic typo. I can’t decided if it’s better to think that Banana’s kink is a feline audience or that she has a problem with her cat savaging paramours.

Comment #87: scrumby  on  09/05  at  03:27 PM

If only women can be shallow does this also mean only women can be deep?

Comment #88: James  on  09/05  at  03:36 PM

If only women can be shallow does this also mean only women can be deep?

Mainly just women are blamed for being shallow- it’s a man’s natural right to have standards, him being a full human and all, and her being only an item useful for people (men) to have sex with.  And if you think women get credit for doing “correctly” any of the things that they are blamed for doing “wrong,” you live in a better world than I’ve seen.

Comment #89: Nimravid  on  09/05  at  03:42 PM

For me the biggest dealbreaker was children. I was *not* going to date a guy who wanted them (or “wasn’t sure how he felt” which is code for “not now, but someday I’m going to want them”) because I knew for damn sure I didn’t and that wasn’t changing. The anti-choice thing never really made it past the gates for me because I’m so adamantly and unapologetically pro-choice that if some guy started making “gosh life is so precious” noises at me I would start an argument and chase him off before anything could ever develop. But kids? That’s just such a fundamental part of who someone is—that desire to be a mom or a dad or to avoid the little hellspawn at all costs. It would be unfair to my partner to deny kids to them, and it would be unfair of them to saddle me with kids I didn’t want.

Comment #90: Mighty Ponygirl  on  09/05  at  03:47 PM

Fair enough, chin @71, but outdoorsy bores me to tears, so also a dealbreaker. I never said I needed a guy who is always dressed up. Just not someone indifferent to how they look. Even when casual, why go ugly and ill-fitting?

Comment #91: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  03:49 PM

Men can definitely be shallow. But if someone is getting called shallow, chances are it’s a woman.

Ironically, patriarchy-boosters will often assert with a straight face that it’s normal, if not universal, for men to prize a woman’s appearance above all else. According to the traditional gender script, that’s just how male sexuality works. Yet, the people who believe that never make the leap from the belief that all men care about is looks to the judgement that men are inherently shallow.

Comment #92: Lindsay Beyerstein  on  09/05  at  03:50 PM

Nah, James, though it would be logical if so.  All aboard the Misogynous Adjective Train, which travels in only one direction.  A strident or shrill woman isn’t a deviation from the normal woman whom we all want to hear because she speaks in sonorous, mellifluous tones.

Comment #93: Unree  on  09/05  at  03:52 PM

My short list of the non-negotiable: Republicans.

Was true 40 years ago, holds true now.

Or someone with the same narrow, including, racist belief system.

Went out on two dates with someone attractive and seemingly nice, I met through a progressive political group.

Until he wanted to discuss (no, he wanted me to agree with) his 9/11 “Truther” “beliefs” with the added dollop of “immigrants are ruining everything.”

With that, I was done.

Comment #94: judybrowni  on  09/05  at  03:54 PM

Also I won’t dump someone if they very occasionally wear shorts in the handful of situations where it’s appropriate, that is outdoor shows and barbecues. What I hate is the slow descent of basic aesthetics in the U.S. It’s like the end of libido the way people think shorts are what you wear all the time no matter what. I fucking love New York, which has rejected the anti-aesthetics look. No fannypacks here. I love it. I can’t believe some of the clothes dudes would actually try to pull in first dates when I was single. You’re trying to get laid! Try to assume she should want to look at you.

Comment #95: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  04:00 PM

My deal breakers:

1. Sexist/racist/homophobic/Republican/Libertarian/Right-wing, etc.

2. No physical attraction. He/She doesn’t have to be conventionally good looking as long as I can become attracted to them, and I can become attracted to someone over a period of time even if I wasn’t at first. Which is why being willing to take things somewhat slow, at least in the beginning, is also important.

3. Sexually pushy in any way. I have sex drive, but it’ll turn right off if I feel pushed or pressured.

4. Someone who bugs me about what I eat. I’m very finicky and I tend to stick to foods that feel “safe” to me. Pushing me too hard to try things that look absolutely disgusting is going to really piss me off.

5. Cat hater, because I have a cat. Though I’d understand if they avoided cats for something like allergies, but we’d probably not be able to live together in that case, since I’m already owned by a cat.

6. Someone with no intellectual curiosity.

7. No sense of humor, no appreciation of dark humor.

8. Seriously into religion.

9. Seriously into woo.

10. Seriously into traditional gender roles.

11. Someone who’s not a geek and can’t appreciate any geeky things. I find it really hard to relate to non-geeks for extended periods of time. It’s like trying to speak a foreign language.

12. Someone who’s very, very extroverted and doesn’t really understand introverts, or is intolerant of them. It’s okay if they’re a little more extroverted than me, and that could actually be a good thing, considering I’m practically a recluse. But someone who doesn’t understand introverts at all is just going to constantly be thinking I’m a bad person or an unfriendly person.

13. Someone who’s not straightforward in their communication style; who expects me to get subtlety and ‘read between the lines.’ I do much better with people who are blunt, even if the bluntness stings sometimes. At least you know where you stand.

Comment #96: luxaeturna  on  09/05  at  04:04 PM

I agree that everyone is entitled to their own dealbreakers, but the nature of those dealbreakers can reveal a great deal about the person drawing the lines.

My guess is that a very different article would have been written about the Gizmodo piece if the author had said, “There was absolutely no indication on the web-dating profile, and when we met in person, he was FAT!!!!!  How deceptive and manipulative to not let people know that you’re chubby.”  I’m guessing that would be called “fat-shaming,” and people would rightly have called that author an a-hole (reverse the genders—such that it’s a man complaining about being tricked into sharing dinner with a fat chick, and a certain sub-set of blogs would likely be quite unhappy).

The legitimate concern about the card playing was that it could be an obsession, leaving little time for a relationship.  The author of that article, however, had no idea how that card playing impacted daily life.  Maybe it consumed his whole day, maybe it took up less time than someone who worked out daily, the judgment was based purely on ignorant bias.  Similarly, a man concluding after a first date with an overweight woman that she is lazy, eats poorly, and refuses to exercise would be an unwarranted assumption.  Maybe, maybe not.  I’m confused why the former bias is being defended when I’ve read endless posts from the blogs being mentioned here heavily criticizing (rightly) assumptions about people’s lifestyle based on their weight.  Both instances are of superficial judgment.

What about someone for whom race is a deal breaker?  That doesn’t indicate something deeply wrong with that person?  How about a guy who’s uncomfortable with a woman with a more successful career?

Obviously it would be silly to force people into relationships where they’re uncomfortable.  I’m not sure I understand why you’d want to be with someone that has announced an intense dislike of something you care a great deal about (magic card playing, or whatever), but I very much disagree that all dealbreakers are just meaningless statements of preference.  They can reveal shallowness or just downright a-holeness.

Comment #97: doubtthat  on  09/05  at  04:05 PM

Indifference to clothes is the universal signal of the layabout.

Yeah, add me to the list of people who find that statement ridiculous.

I’m going to side with the “shallow is coded as feminine” crowd here. I do think it is shifting. but I still think it is predominantly coded as a female thing.

Even when casual, why go ugly and ill-fitting?
Poverty?  But yeah, no problem with this, I just didn’t understand the link you were making with “wouldn’t want to go to dinner”.

Comment #98: LC  on  09/05  at  04:08 PM

@Older Alas the beard and I are spoken for.

@98 Mighty Ponygirl Wanting children would definitely been a deal-breaker for me. I have known that I would never have children for about as long as I have known how children are made.

Comment #99: phil zombi  on  09/05  at  04:09 PM

My deal breakers.
1. Eats meat.
2. Republican
3. Uses physics to justify pro-life beliefs
4. Animal-haters
5. Frat membership
6. Creepy handlebar moustache
7. Nasal drip
8. Requiring large amounts of sleep.

Comment #100: t-ster  on  09/05  at  04:10 PM

Amanda, I think you are going to really enjoy this Web site I found.

Comment #101: PhysioProf  on  09/05  at  04:11 PM

Gah. my post got all out of order.

*sigh* Please rearrange that to make the clothing parts next to each other.

Comment #102: LC  on  09/05  at  04:14 PM

I think really what is is is how many people have this “clothes are things that cover your body and giving them any more mind than that is ‘shallow’” attitude, and they can go ahead and believe that, but I strongly disagree.  Even when I lived in a jeans-and-T-shirt city, I made sure my jeans were nice, my T-shirts fit well and were interesting, and I had nice shoes.  I like going the extra mile, because life is so short.  You can rest when you’re dead is my motto.  So I like to go out to eat just because quite a bit, because I like doing things that please or excite the senses for their own sake, and don’t really need a special occasion for it.  This is so deeply tied to sexuality and what it means to you that I really am surprised anyone would push back against it. I can’t find it sexually exciting if a man doesn’t care about dressing his body in ways that are pleasing to the eye, even when casually.

Comment #103: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  04:14 PM

Luke, Amanda’s not telling women what standards they should have. She’s encouraging women to make their own decisions about who they want to sleep with, based on their own values and preferences.

Comment #104: Lindsay Beyerstein  on  09/05  at  04:14 PM

PhysioProf, that is awesome. smile

Comment #105: LC  on  09/05  at  04:14 PM

Thealogian @13, I have the opposite problem—too many friends who read nothing but fiction. I like both and I suppose with the internet it’s less of an indicator of one’s desire for knowledge of the world for someone to only read fiction, but I can’t shake it. If someone only reads fiction, it concerns me that they aren’t curious about the world, but I suppose if they only read one type of non-fiction, I’d feel similarly.

My dealbreakers are pretty much the same as Amanda’s. After a horrible breakup in college in which I was unceremoniously dumped by a guy who loved Pearl Jam,  I vowed to myself that I would never again smile and nod and pretend to not hate a band because the dude I was with liked them.

The guy doesn’t have to be a cat lover per se, but he can’t hate my cats either. Also, if a guy has a dog that I find scary or obnoxious, that’s out too. I like some dogs and can tolerate others I’m not particularly fond of, but it’s very dependent on personality and if your dog is ruining our time spent together, there is no chance it will work.

Comment #106: chareth cutestory  on  09/05  at  04:15 PM

luke, you have some weird sexual fantasy about women who have sex with everyone without any kind of personal desires or tastes.  That’s fine, but please take it to your bedroom and stop inflicting it on everyone else.

Comment #107: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  04:15 PM

The dressing sloppy thing, I don’t know the details as to what is sloppy, but whenever I see someone wearing sweats and pajama’s in public, I think “chronic pain,” not “doesn’t care.” I dress loose now because I hurt all the time. I used to wear skin tight black jeans always with the shirts tucked in.

My deal breakers:

-Must have a life outside of me and be self motivated. I can’t provide entertainments or give attention to another 100% of the time, or even 50% of the time.

-Must be an artist.

-Must be an atheist. (Broadest definition)

-Must understand that if I have sex with them, it’s for them because I want to please them. I’m not interested in sex; I don’t get off from it; I can’t orgasm.

-Must accept my mental and physical differences.

-Must be capable of arguing without fallacy.

-Must not be involved in illegal drugs. While I’m a permissive person I won’t allow myself to be caught up with people in the drug trade.

-Must be comfortable around pistols, assault and battle rifles.

-Must be at least liberal, though the more left the better.

-Must be anti-oppression. Earnestly, not theoretically.

Comment #108: R.T.  on  09/05  at  04:17 PM

@luke123

Perhaps this isn’t your environment. I suggest you hang at an MRA forum as they’d take you in.

Comment #109: R.T.  on  09/05  at  04:20 PM

doubt @105: I doubt very much anyone is suggesting dealbreakers are meaningless.  You’re right—-someone with sexist or racist ones is sexist or racist.  Of course, that doesn’t change the importance of them not dating someone who turns them off.  If fat women turn you off, do not date them.  That implies that fat women are happy with a pity-fucking, which is also a nasty prejudice.  I really don’t think fat activists would defend a woman concealing her size on a dating profile in order to score dates with guys that would otherwise not want to date her.  The idea is accepting fatness, and that behavior implies being ashamed of it and being willing to accept a pity-fuck.  The point of fat activism is acceptance, which means in no small part dating people who are legitimately into you, size and all.  Kate Harding has written about how she made her weight clear on her dating profiles. 

Also, I really wouldn’t compare someone being turned off by geekiness to someone being racist.  You’re tip-toeing into that territory, and that’s fucked up.  I think I’m a nice, relatively non-bigoted person, but there’s reasons I don’t want to date someone who’s really geeky and it doesn’t in any universe make me a bad person.  I deserve to date to make myself happy.  All women do.  A really geeky guy wouldn’t do it for me; it would be sexually unsatisfying and I’d constantly be upset by the, um, cultural gulf. Why be sad?  So someone else can “enjoy” being pity-fucked?

Comment #110: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  04:22 PM

What annoys me is what I perceive as the insistence that we let this contextual kindness creep into and dilute our everyday discourse about the things we like and things we care about. It’s annoying because there’s this admonition - which you did express - that stating some opinion as a bold statement on the quality of a thing somehow gives the impression that this is an objective fact. I think that’s bullshit, and it’s insulting to the intelligence of the people you interact with. Of course my feelings about scallops aren’t objective fact; no one who has any understanding of language would actually take me to mean that they are objectively gross, and anyone who thinks that I think it’s a statement of objective fact is reading way too much into it. But that’s how I feel, and I want to give my opinions and feelings some force, just as I want the people around me to give their feelings and opinions some force. Because otherwise, what the fuck is there to talk about?

Okay, I get you here. Truth be told, I myself express opinions very strongly from time to time and don’t always preface that with a qualifying statement, so it would be a tad hypocritical for me to admonish others for doing the same thing. For me, that tends to be in situations in which I’m with friends or in a space where I’ve established a reasonably long-standing presence (my department, this blog, etc.). Other times I’m more diplomatic because I’m still feeling out the interests, predilections, and sensitivities of the people I’m talking to (particularly online, where you generally don’t have nonverbal cues to go along with the language).  It’s all on a gradient, and how far up or down that gradient you go depends on the situation; sometimes an opinion strongly expressed makes for more interesting conversation and sometimes it makes one an obnoxious jerk. Which I’m not accusing you or anyone else of being, by the way.

Also I won’t dump someone if they very occasionally wear shorts in the handful of situations where it’s appropriate, that is outdoor shows and barbecues. What I hate is the slow descent of basic aesthetics in the U.S. It’s like the end of libido the way people think shorts are what you wear all the time no matter what. I fucking love New York, which has rejected the anti-aesthetics look. No fannypacks here. I love it. I can’t believe some of the clothes dudes would actually try to pull in first dates when I was single. You’re trying to get laid! Try to assume she should want to look at you.

Then I suspect you really wouldn’t care much for fashion here in Seattle, because the anti-asthetics look runs pretty strong here. Though I don’t see many fannypacks; the messenger bag or backpack is the preferred cargoholder.

Comment #111: Linnaeus  on  09/05  at  04:23 PM

Do you really need to be banned in order to stop bothering people, luke? I can go ahead and do that, but it would be lovely if you just took your incoherent angry crap elsewhere on your own.

Comment #112: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  04:24 PM

people have a right to their dealbreakers, full stop.  But some of what is said to women about what you should value in a partner reflects some life experience about marriage with kids and about sticking around for the long term.  So it probably doesn’t apply to people who aren’t looking for that. 

But once you have kids what matters in a partner does change.  For instance, a partner being constantly late never mattered to me before kids, I’m relaxed and I always have a paperback.  But now it can matter a lot.  Sense of humor matters a lot more after kids than before. 

Its sexist to give that kind of long-term relationship advice only to women.  But if you are the kind of person for whom kids in a long-term relationship really matters than thinking about whether that list of dealbreakers is really going to matter to you when you have two toddlers is good advice.

Comment #113: rivelino  on  09/05  at  04:31 PM

I think really what is is is how many people have this “clothes are things that cover your body and giving them any more mind than that is ‘shallow’” attitude, and they can go ahead and believe that, but I strongly disagree.

I don’t think people were taking issue with your personal preferences about clothes. I can be coaxed into talking about people’s poor sartorial standards, as well. It was about the association between sloppy clothes and/or sandals with not going out at all and being a layabout. You’re making a moral judgment/behavioral assumption over an aesthetic issue/preference.

If being a slob is a sign of being a layabout who doesn’t go out to dinner spontaneously, why the heck are there all these slobs sitting at the surrounding tables when I go out to dinner?.

If you must know, however, the reason people have a utilitarian, “clothes are things that cover your body” attitude is that for many people, growing up was laden with so much stress and judgment about what clothes to wear and when, and the ability to be an environment where you can say, “fuck it,” is very liberating.

Comment #114: Tyro  on  09/05  at  04:33 PM

I’m a little surprised so few people have mentioned smoking.  Maybe it’s because it’s becoming so uncommon, but that was always my #1 dealbreaker, almost the only unwavering one, in fact.

Comment #115: MTS  on  09/05  at  04:42 PM

It’s comforting to find out that I can regard anyone whose political opinions differ from my own as a “bigot” and not have to be friends. The whole civility thing is just a bore.

It’s false civility to say that a person can’t be called a bigot.

Bigots are less civil than anyone. It amazes me when people say the worst things about a minority group, say LGBT people, call them pedophiles and animal fuckers, then get bent when someone tells them to fuck off, as cussing seems to be the general complaint about civilit among them. No self awareness there at all.

Comment #116: R.T.  on  09/05  at  04:42 PM

@ luke123

You read like one.

Comment #117: R.T.  on  09/05  at  04:43 PM

PhysioProf, that is awesome. smile

Isn’t itte amazing the shitte you can find on the Internet!?!?

 

Comment #118: PhysioProf  on  09/05  at  04:43 PM

What I hate is the slow descent of basic aesthetics in the U.S. It’s like the end of libido the way people think shorts are what you wear all the time no matter what. I fucking love New York, which has rejected the anti-aesthetics look.

Interestingly enough, one of the things cited by the parents of a high school friend who were both hippies in the ‘60s was how one of the greatest things the hippies did for subsequent generations was to eliminate dress codes and relax social norms on how one dresses in public. 

They often cited how back when they were students, some teachers and college Profs will order a student to leave the class and mark him/her absent of his/her standards of dress were non-compliant with ‘50s-early ‘60s norms (i.e.mandated suit and tie for men, mandated dresses/skirts for women, etc).  Ironically, many in the older generation complain that this very outcome is one reason why current youth dress like slobs compared to the times of their youth. 

Personally, I prefer the greater live and let live current attitudes which accepts the existence of those who dress like slobs than to go back to how things were 40-50 years ago or to conform to self-appointed fashionistas in certain areas of NYC.

Comment #119: exholt  on  09/05  at  04:46 PM

I think sexual desire works very differently between you and me then. Probably the difference between men and women.

Dumb

For example, someone taste in music or religious beliefs does not have anything to do with sexual attraction for me. That’s just irrelevant. Relevant for friendship and spending time but not for making me horny.

Dumber

Cause it’s all about what makes you horny, and it doesn’t include having a personality.

Got it.

Comment #120: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  09/05  at  04:51 PM

Amazing, indeed.

Comment #121: LC  on  09/05  at  04:51 PM

and if your dog is ruining our time spent together, there is no chance it will work.

I went on one date with a woman who brought me back to her house and proceeded to spend the entire evening ignoring me in favor of her cats. There was no second date.

I like cats just fine when they’re in the background, though. The problem with dogs is that many of them don’t want to be in the background.

It’s comforting to find out that I can regard anyone whose political opinions differ from my own as a “bigot” and not have to be friends. The whole civility thing is just a bore.

I’m sorry, you’re surprised to find out that you get to choose your friends? Your idea of “civility” seems to be that we shouldn’t bother finding people we’ll actually enjoy spending time with; we should just tolerate everyone even if their opinions make us grind our teeth incessantly.

I mean, I “tolerate” most everyone in the “live and let live” sense, but that doesn’t extend to spending time with them unless I really want to. But I suspect what you’re actually doing is trying to set aside “politics” as some separate category of human opinion that should never be taken seriously and shouldn’t be employed as a standard by which to evaluate people or find common ground with them.

In which case you’re just full of shit. Politics aren’t abstract and meaningless. If someone wants workers to have no rights, or women to be forced to give birth, they are hateful people. Why should I want to hang around with hateful people?

Comment #122: Triplanetary  on  09/05  at  04:53 PM

Haha, I enjoy that you generated some hyperbolic reading of my post to call it “fucked up.”  Nothing like a little strawman building on Labor Day.

All superficial generalizations share something in common—they’re superficial generalizations.  Whether that generalization occurs based on race, gender, way of speaking, if someone has “gay” mannerisms, geekiness, jockiness, what make-up someone wears, what shoes they have on…etc., the process is similar.

Now, if you honestly thought that I was comparing anti-geek bias to the legacy of racism in this country in terms of societal impact, or whatever you’re implying, I can only laugh.  Having reread my post to make sure, it’s fairly clear that I was arguing that people’s dealbreakers can be meaningful and can be a source of criticism.  That doesn’t mean anti-geek bias is the SAME as or as BAD as racial bias, it simply means that calling something a “dealbreaker” doesn’t remove it from scrutiny.  Depending on the dealbreaker, the fact that person holds that position can make them shallow, evil, dickish, stupid…whatever.

And again, I think dealbreakers are perfectly legitimate.  It’s bizarre to argue that somehow people, especially women, should be forced to date someone they don’t like, even if they don’t like them for stupid/evil/silly/good/legitimate/whatever reasons.

Look, the geek community reacted to the Gizmodo writer much like someone would react to a jackass dude writing about his e-date with a semi-notable woman if he wrote, “yeah, on her page it said she went to college, but can you believe that this——- wants to go to grad school?  Man, that’s a dealbreaker.”  Yeah, that guy shouldn’t be forced to date that woman (mostly for the sake of the woman), but it’s fair to call him an asshole.  Now, since I have to be clear, geek-bias does not have the society-wide impact that sexism does, but in both cases a good “fuck you” seems appropriate from the targeted community.

Comment #123: doubtthat  on  09/05  at  04:56 PM

It’s interesting how someone else’s deal breakers can in turn become deal breakers. Like someone brought up “what if a different race was a deal breaker?” Well yeah, that could happen. But to a lot of people, having that deal breaker in of itself would also be a deal breaker.

I think everyone has a right to their deal breakers, but since everyone has their own opinions and deal breakers, you can’t expect approval for all of your deal breakers. But that brings up the interesting question of why it’s okay to not like someone else’s deal breaker (while supporting their right to have that deal breaker nonetheless) but why it’s not okay that society in general seems to disapprove of women having deal breakers.

I think it comes down to the individual versus society. I can find out about a person’s individual deal breaker and it’s perfectly within my rights to think it’s the stupidest reason not to date someone ever. So for example, an individual guy can not like that a particular girl doesn’t want to date him because he’s a geek. But when it spreads into that being a general societal attitude, especially when it gets generalized to the point of society always expecting women to lower their expectations, well then that’s when it gets really bad and oppressive.

There’s also a distinction between thinking someone’s deal breaker is stupid, and thinking that the person having deal breakers at all is stupid or bad or whatever. Thinking someone’s deal breaker sucks is one thing. Not supporting their right to have deal breakers in general is what’s wrong.

Comment #124: luxaeturna  on  09/05  at  04:58 PM

t-ster @ 109:

3. Uses physics to justify pro-life beliefs

How does this even work, exactly?  I’m a physics professor and I work among physicists (I don’t call myself one because my research area is education and I only teach physics, I don’t do research in it) and I can’t imagine how it could be done at all. 

I’ve been married for 13 years now, so it’s been a while since I really thought about this stuff, but my dealbreakers would include

*religion—I’m an atheist and while I could probably stand a guy who was nominally religious/a believer, he absolutely cannot take it too seriously because I’m not going back to religion myself.

*bigoted, racist, or homophobic—obviously

*must be pro-choice.  In fact, I’ll go even further and say that he must think people who aren’t pro-choice are, at minimum, assholes.  I can’t even be friends with someone who isn’t at least nominally pro-choice, even if it isn’t the choice they would make themselves.  I have some dearly loved family members who aren’t and quite frankly, those are the only exceptions I can make in my life w.r.t. that.

*politics—he doesn’t have to be as lefty as I am, but he must be at least moderately progressive in his politics.  No conservatives and/or Republicans/Libertarians.

*must have a dark/twisted sense of humor.  I just can’t be with somebody who doesn’t make me laugh and who doesn’t find inappropriate things sometimes funny.

*must like kids, but not want any of his own (unless he already has them).  I have two sons and if something were to ever happen that their father and I weren’t together, anybody I was with would have to like my kids.  However, I’m done with the two and I don’t ever, ever plan on having any more, so he can’t want to have any specifically with me, because that’s just not happening.

I’m actually not all that invested in questions of taste in movies, music, etc., so long as we can respect each others’ differences in that regard.  My husband really loves electronica/techno/dance music and I personally can’t stand it.  But he mostly doesn’t subject me to that sort of thing.  Similarly, I don’t ask him to read romance novels/watch sappy romantic movies with me.  It works out okay for us.

Comment #125: ks  on  09/05  at  05:04 PM

I’ve certainly had deal-breakers that I now find embarrassing. The right job or at the very least the right school. I’ve come to find (later in life than I should have) that job prestige and academic pedigree are not the end all be all of….anything.

Athleticism and a love of the outdoors are a must (and actual love of the outdoors, not just the “I live in Seattle so I must claim t love camping) thing. Likely the time I spend in the gym would seem irritating or strange to someone who didn’t spend the same amount of time. And of course, most gym types are attracted to gym types.

Clothing is a complete non-issue. I think it hard for a person who cares deeply about how their body to look slobby in…well anything.

Comment #126: John Joel Glanton  on  09/05  at  05:04 PM

Amanda @ 120: “Also, I really wouldn’t compare someone being turned off by geekiness to someone being racist.  You’re tip-toeing into that territory, and that’s fucked up.  I think I’m a nice, relatively non-bigoted person, but there’s reasons I don’t want to date someone who’s really geeky and it doesn’t in any universe make me a bad person.”

Yeah, no disagreement. But that’s not what Bereznak said—instead, she argued that geekiness is universally objectionable. You see how that’s categorically different than having any number of personal dealbreakers?

Comment #127: heresiarch  on  09/05  at  05:12 PM

No. Amanda’s post is confusing spending time with someone, with having sex with someone.

Spending time with someone and having sex with them? That almost sounds like dating! Which is the still subject of this post Luke no matter how much you talk about what you’ll put up with to get your dick wet for a few minutes.

Comment #128: scrumby  on  09/05  at  05:13 PM

Tyro @124: False.  I never said being a layabout was immoral.  Please point to where I said that.

I said I can’t take it.  I imagine I’d drive a layabout crazy, myself.  They’d always be begging me to sit still and wondering why I think that I always have to be doing stuff.  And scolding me for thinking there’s anything that could be more fun than rolling a joint and sitting on the patio in an old T-shirt and sandals.  They’re entitled to feel that way.  I’m entitled to feel significantly more pleasure putting on nice shoes and leaving the house.  I’m not going to be happy with someone who feels that the effort isn’t worth.  I’m deeply amused that my right to absolutely feel this way is being challenged.  Which is why this is a fun discussion—-even pro-feminist people have unquestioned prejudices about women’s equal rights to have partners who turn us on and make us happy.

Comment #129: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  05:23 PM

luke, you’re allowed to have your sexual fantasies of non-discerning women.  I just said you should distinguish between your fantasy women and the real world discussion we’re having here.  So please, leave.  You’re incoherent.

Comment #130: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  05:25 PM

doubt, the problem is you assume that a woman not wanting a geek is stupid/evil.  Maybe she’s just not a geek and there is not going to be sexual compatibility.  Non-geeks are often fine people.  I have some geek friends, but honestly most of my friends really aren’t, and they’re great people.

Comment #131: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  05:28 PM

Amanda - A lot of us know, or are, people who dress carelessly and aren’t layabouts. Of course if you dislike both layabouts and scruffy dressers you ought to shun them both for dating purposes! The bit I’m starting to get worked up about is your insistence that I, as a scruff who’s not a layabout, don’t exist.

Comment #132: MissPrism  on  09/05  at  05:31 PM

Really, @140?  You have proof that she said that?  A direct quote?  Because I read the piece and she actually said that one should state up-front if you’re a big geek, so that women who are not going to be into that can take a pass.  The underlying assumption isn’t that it’s universally objectionable, but something objectionable to a significant portion of the population—-this is an objective fact—-that you should state it.  The question is whether or not someone is an asshole for believing that she should get to reject a geek out of hand, or if she’s supposed to get to know him better first.  I’m in camp out-of-hand.  Why not?

Comment #133: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  05:36 PM

Fair enough, chin @71, but outdoorsy bores me to tears, so also a dealbreaker.

Somehow that doesn’t surprise me.

Comment #134: chingona  on  09/05  at  05:37 PM

Okay, fine.  For some reason, people don’t like the term “layabout”.  But wevs, I want someone who does want to look good for me.  I have found that strongly correlated with a general willingness to go out and have fun, though perhaps it’s not a 1-to-1 correlation.

Comment #135: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  05:37 PM

Personality matters. Look above to what I wrote above as dealbreakers:

- Not sure if she will be cool with keeping it casual, and not be a stalker
- Spoiled bratty entitled attitude

So you wouldn’t date anyone with Borderline Personality Disorder.  Good to know.

That are what I would consider credible reasons for not having sex with someone.

Nelson Algren already said it better than you:

“Never sleep with someone whose troubles are worse than your own.”

And, for the last time, Amanda was talking about having a relationship, not her standards for a one-night stand.

I vote that the stick rule has been violated, Amanda.

Comment #136: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  09/05  at  05:38 PM

Alright, banning luke.

Comment #137: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  05:38 PM

Nothing wrong with it, chin!  I imagine an outdoorsy person would also be bored by me, a major city mouse.

Comment #138: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  05:39 PM

Amanda, my issue is not that I think you should date/support layabouts, or that you should respect the sloppy/indifferent dressers of this world or that you’re wrong for having those things as dealbreakers. It’s that your “indifferent standards of dress == layabout” association is just wrong.

... and as an aside so is your assertion “sandals/flipflops = fashion crime.” To “kids these days,” sandals/flipflops are considered acceptable attire. You can disagree with that, of course, but that’s similar to how my grandmother probably didn’t think people should show up to church tieless. Doesn’t mean she was right, just that she was making judgments based on the standards of her era which are no longer in effect.

Comment #139: Tyro  on  09/05  at  05:39 PM

I wear a beard, because I think I look better with one, and shaving every day is a pain.

And the idea that women “have” to shave their underarm hair is one the more stupid ones we as a species have come up with.

Comment #140: geoduck  on  09/05  at  05:42 PM

Luke, I’m wondering if you wouldn’t be happier buying a blow-up doll instead of engaging with real live women.

That way, you wouldn’t have to worry about your partner having a disease, being stalkery or copping an attitude.

Comment #141: redheadedfemme  on  09/05  at  05:43 PM

I’m sorry that I offended your fashion sense, Tyro.  If I promise that I don’t think you’re evil because I probably would be turned off by how you dress, will you promise not to be so damn offended?  You’d probably not want me, either.  That’s the point.

Comment #142: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  05:44 PM

@Comment #125: AnonymousDog on 09/05 at 04:33 PM

It’s comforting to find out that I can regard anyone whose political opinions differ from my own as a “bigot” and not have to be friends. The whole civility thing is just a bore.

Did we hurt poor AnonymousDog’s feelings?

 

Comment #143: atheist  on  09/05  at  05:46 PM

How amazing that I was able to marry a Democrat, and stay married to her for 32 years, 3 months and 17 days.  We just don’t argue politics with each other; I do that online, with people who either have thick skins or I won’t care if they get angry and leave.

Comment #144: Dana  on  09/05  at  05:46 PM

It’s comforting to find out that I can regard anyone whose political opinions differ from my own as a “bigot” and not have to be friends

You’re not entitled to anyone’s friendship, especially when you hold on to an odious moral belief system.

“Civility” is just that—“being civil,” not being your friend. It’s another one of those things that is liberating—when someone is odious to be around, you can choose not to continue a relationship with that person.

Comment #145: Tyro  on  09/05  at  05:46 PM

I can’t imagine Amanda having anything to do with this layabout.

Comment #146: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  09/05  at  05:46 PM

Perhaps “layabout” was the wrong word, since it has false implications about work life.  I’m referring to how someone spends their free time, mainly.  I am a sad person spending all my time at home, and I screened for it when dating, heavily.  Part of that—-not all of it—-was picking up on signals that someone would be opposed to doing stuff that meant they had to put on shoes.

Comment #147: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  05:50 PM

The Gizmodo article was a weak attempt to drum up publicity by calling out a semi-famous person within that community under the guise of making some point about disclosure on an online dating site.  The message is “be careful ladies, you might end up on a date with a geek.”

I actually don’t think turning someone down for being a geek is a particular problem.  Phrasing it in those terms is likely the reason why there was such uproar.  Compare:

1) I went on this date and ended up with a Geek!!
2) I went on this date and ended up with a guy with whom I shared nothing in common.  He liked card games, I didn’t.

It is pretty much the opposite of shallow to reject someone because you share no interests in common, but there is a none-too-subtle point in that article that geekiness is a problem, in and of itself:

So when I saw an IM from a guy named Jon that said, “You should go out with me smile” I was relieved. He seemed normal.

We started talking about normal stuff—family, work, college. I told him my brother was a gamer. And then he casually mentioned that he played Magic: The Gathering when he was younger.

She thought he was “normal,” but he turned out to be a “geek.”  She’s not saying, as you are, that she doesn’t prefer geeks or chooses not to spend time with geeks, she’s saying that there’s something abnormal about them.  Again, that seems to legitimize some of the angst within geekdom (and a lot of is insane and sexist and inchorent.  It’s the internet).

And yes, I think that’s a pretty shallow, silly position to hold: that geeks aren’t “normal.”

Comment #148: doubtthat  on  09/05  at  05:52 PM

So it’s both unattractive in a direct sense for me that someone is slovenly, but it also fits into a larger picture of what I want in a man, which is definitely someone who is regularly into putting on shoes and going out.

Comment #149: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  05:54 PM

Amanda- I think it’s likely that nearly all layabouts are scruffs! The reverse doesn’t hold at all among my acquaintance, possibly due to the nerd bias, but the correlation might well be there in general.

The scruffiest dresser I ever went out with was the one who’d get up at 5am to cycle 30 miles then climb a hill on the offchance of seeing a rare butterfly or orchid or something. Once he bought an inflatable dinghy for 10p at a jumble sale, rushed to the nearest lake, blew it up by mouth, pushed off and sank. It was hilarious, but one of the reasons I’m now glad we broke up (although it gutted me at the time) was he was too exhaustingly energetic and couldn’t just kick back with a beer.

Comment #150: MissPrism  on  09/05  at  05:54 PM

doubt, #1 and #2 are the same thing.  “He’s a geek!” implies that she’s not into geeks.  She never—-never—-said that no one else ever could be.  I agree the article was geek-baiting, but it’s also pathetic seeing geeks so easily baited.  It would be wise to be like Finkel and say, yep, not everyone is into us.  So what?

Comment #151: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  05:56 PM

I’m sorry that I offended your fashion sense, Tyro.  If I promise that I don’t think you’re evil because I probably would be turned off by how you dress, will you promise not to be so damn offended?

You think just because I disagree with your judgment calls that I’m taking it as a personal attack, and you are wrong about that. Your standards of what is “acceptable” are off-kilter. While I am not part of the “dudes in brown flip flops” crowd, I do recognize it as a trend among young professionals in the city. Maybe I’m more comfortable than you are at accepting standards about what’s fashionable becoming widely adopted without actually being part of it.

As I said, if sloppy dressers in flipflops are people “who will never once want to go out to dinner just because the weather is nice,” why the heck are they aesthetically messing up all the local restaurants?

someone who is regularly into putting on shoes and going out.

It is no longer a requirement to wear proper shoes before going out, for men or women. You can consider this sartorially unacceptable (which is fine), but that fight has been lost. Your association is a bit old fashioned.

Comment #152: Tyro  on  09/05  at  05:57 PM

@150

Let’s compare two statements:
-I would not date somebody whose politics I find offensive.
-It is impossible for two people with different politics to get along.

Now see if you can pick out which statement Amanda made in her post, and which she did not!

Comment #153: Triplanetary  on  09/05  at  05:57 PM

Be that as it may, Miss, I’m still reading your description and thinking, “Someone who generally would not want to do things I like to do, in no small part because you have to put your shoes on.”

Comment #154: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/05  at  05:59 PM

Come on now, by calling her preferences “normal” and contrasting that with geeks, the point is obvious.  Yeah, some “other” people might be into that, but they’re not normal either.

Surely you can see the difference between saying, “here are my personal preferences, they don’t align with yours,” and, “here are my personal preferences, they’re normal, they don’t align with yours because you’re a geek.”

Now, did geekdom overreact?  Obviously.  That’s sort of how things work on the internet, and that’s geek turf.  I just don’t think it’s a particularly compelling argument to defend the Gizmodo article by saying the author was merely stating a preference.  It’s (shockingly) possible to state a preference without condemning that which does not attract you.

Comment #155: doubtthat  on  09/05  at  06:03 PM

One of the “dealbreakers” I saw go almost unmentioned is being fat, but I wonder how much that’s something that really isn’t a dealbreaker, and how much is “Well, I’m not going to mention that because it’s not nice.”

Perhaps the notion of “dealbreakers” isn’t really the right term, because if Amenda—just to use her as an example—thinks beards are a dealbreaker, when she meets some man with a beard, there was never a potential deal in the offing in the first place.  If smoking is a dealbreaker, isn’t it going to be the case that there won’t be much attraction once you see him with a cigarette in the first place?  It would seem to me that the notion of dealbreakers would have to be limited to things which you don’t always see upon the first few meetings.

As for me, I’d guess that smoking would be the only really intolerable dealbreaker.  I did (once) date a woman who smoked, and it was like kissing an ashtray.  That grossed me out then, and since then I’ve seen too many people develop COPD from smoking.

Comment #156: Dana  on  09/05  at  06:12 PM

Fair enough, and I’m 100% sure you would have hated him. It’s just that I know a lot of counterexamples to “scruffy equals lazy pot-addled stick-in-the-mud” and the equation got my hackles up. (Which is partly my fault for secretly looking down on lazy pot-addled sticks-in-the-mud, who are of course having fun in their own way.)

Comment #157: MissPrism  on  09/05  at  06:12 PM

@Comment #135: Amanda Marcotte on 09/05 at 04:23 PM

I said I can’t take it.  I imagine I’d drive a layabout crazy, myself.  They’d always be begging me to sit still and wondering why I think that I always have to be doing stuff.  And scolding me for thinking there’s anything that could be more fun than rolling a joint and sitting on the patio in an old T-shirt and sandals.  They’re entitled to feel that way.  I’m entitled to feel significantly more pleasure putting on nice shoes and leaving the house.  I’m not going to be happy with someone who feels that the effort isn’t worth.  I’m deeply amused that my right to absolutely feel this way is being challenged.  Which is why this is a fun discussion—-even pro-feminist people have unquestioned prejudices about women’s equal rights to have partners who turn us on and make us happy.

Actually, Amanda, you’re absolutely right about the whole “layabout” thing. Amusingly, I personally experienced the relationship you’ve described here, from the layabout side, and it was much as you’ve imagined it.

She was always like, “Lets move to Canada! Don’t you want to move to Canada? Or how about France?” [No, and no.], or, “Lets go dancing, it’s been a whole week since we went clubbing!” [Clubs bore me.], or, “Why don’t you dress better? Don’t you think that if you got a briefcase, people at work would take you more seriously?” [No, I didn’t think that.]

In this way, despite our electric sexual attraction and our mutual affection and respect for each other, we drove each other completely nuts. She was always frustrated and bored wanting to go and do something-or-other, and I was always feeling rushed and tired.

So it’s absolutely right for a woman or a man to state their personal “dealbreakers” clearly, and to own them. Because the alternative, as you have said, is to always be feeling miserable and furthermore always be making your significant other miserable.

Comment #158: atheist  on  09/05  at  06:12 PM

AnonymousDog:

See, that sort of reminds me of the big open source flap here in Massachusetts a few years ago, where the state IT manager wanted to mandate open format data storage and (where possible) open source software for doing work, and the big software companies shat brix and complained that the state IT department was infringing on freedom of software choice, which may sound good if you’re a libertardian, but in actual fact all they had to do to bid on a project was, you know, give up the dox on their data formats. But they were whiny sniveling rich bastards and instead got the guy forced from his job.

Anyway, all that is vaguely related to the saying that you’re not a bigot if you disagree with someone; you’re a bigot if you’re a bigot. Fuck along now.

Comment #159: BrianX  on  09/05  at  06:17 PM

Grolby, as Luke123 so helpfully demonstrates, “people who have no idea how language works” isn’t as much of an unusual, hard-to-find minority group as you seem to think it is. Lots of people have no idea how language works. Particularly since now that “English” has become a “girly” major, in college I ran into a lot of “smart” (as in, academically degreed) people who didn’t consider themselves anti-intellectual at all, for whom it was a specific point of pride to have no idea how language worked.

YOU might know that you’re not an idiot with no idea how language works, but if someone is just meeting you, they do not. And they probably have no particular reason to assume so until you demonstrate it to them. There are a hell of a lot of people out there (particularly geeky people) who really do say “thing X sucks” instead of “I hate thing X” because they are trying to make a point that thing X’s suckiness is an objective fact and has nothing to do with them or their opinions, because they are not subjective (read: GIRLY EWW) and don’t have opinions, they are just smart and so they recognized the objective fact of thing X’s inherent suckiness because they are smart and objective, and if you don’t realize that it sucks, then you are wrong, and you are dumber than they are, and they will look down on you for it. This is great for political opinions and somewhat less great for your opinion on, say, goat cheese.

You’re drawing a false dichotomy between wishy-washy dancing around having an opinion at all, and stating your opinions in a way that presents them as facts about thing X. If you want to state your opinion strongly without sounding like the sort of asshole who doesn’t understand that their taste judgments are subjective opinions because they are self-important assholes who don’t understand language, perception, social skills, and/or the difference between taste and value judgments, it’s entirely possible to say “I fucking HATE thing X.”

I fucking hate mushrooms. But Libertarians SUCK.

(There are, as always, caveats for obviously bantering with people you know well.)

Also, things that I always knew ought to be dealbreakers but unfortunately did not have the sense to turn my ex down over before it got really ugly: Misuse/lack of understanding of concepts such as “subject,” “object,” “subjective,” “objective,” “fact,” “feeling,” and “opinion.” NONE OF THESE ARE DIFFICULT WORDS. Also, dudes who take pride in “not being emotional,” because “out of touch with one’s emotions and in denial about having them” (which is what that actually means) is not a good starting point for emotional involvement with someone.

Comment #160: thecynicalromantic  on  09/05  at  06:17 PM

“Homebody” is probably a better word than “layabout.”

Comment #161: Lindsay Beyerstein  on  09/05  at  06:19 PM

Lindsay:

I don’t know… they aren’t really synonyms really. Homebodies can get things done. Layabouts usually prefer not to.

Comment #162: BrianX  on  09/05  at  06:29 PM

If they can’t bother to take the time to look nice, making the effort to leave the house just because is off the table, I’m sure.

Oh my goodness, I knew there was a reason for me not to wander down to the lake today. I keep forgetting I’m supposed to be a layabout who never goes anywhere because of the flip flops!

I kid, I kid. I get the assumption, but I do think that it’s perhaps a locality issue. Where I live there is almost nowhere you can’t go in flip flops and jeans. It’s just not a fashion-conscious city. There are people who dress nicely, sure, and I suppose if you want to go to Da Club or to a Grant Achatz place or whatever, then yeah, one dolls it up. But if there were a direct correlation between “dressing like a grad student” and “never leaving the house,” Chicago would look like the set of a zombie film.

Comment #163: Well, what?  on  09/05  at  06:31 PM

But Amanda said she didn’t mean someone who had no work ethic, generally. She meant someone who would rather stay at home and chill out in their spare time, rather than going out and doing stuff. To me, that’s a homebody.

Comment #164: Lindsay Beyerstein  on  09/05  at  06:46 PM

Agree with Lindsay in #170 that ‘homebody’ is probably a better word to describe this type of person.

Comment #165: atheist  on  09/05  at  06:56 PM

Had to laugh when I got to the beard thing. I have, in the past, had a very short beard. Not stubble, my wife hates that. I had the beard when my daughter was very young, and she is now quite young still. Every so often, she touches my face and demands I grow a beard again. I can’t right now, because of my work situation.

Also, chalk me up to being one of those guys who grows a beard (when he can) and is married to a woman who doesn’t shave or trim anything. At all. When we first started dating I was a little… I dunno, surprised, I guess, at the armpit hair. Now I just don’t care at all, and getting from “Wow, she actually doesn’t ever shave her armpits,” to “What the hell is going on? She shaved her armpits!” was pretty fast.

I’ll grow the beard when I go back to Canada to live, and I’m all right with the fact that some women won’t want to kiss me.

Comment #166: Matthew, Patron Saint of Affogato  on  09/05  at  06:57 PM

Amanda- I think it’s likely that nearly all layabouts are scruffs! The reverse doesn’t hold at all among my acquaintance, possibly due to the nerd bias, but the correlation might well be there in general.

Yes! I tend towards indifference when it comes to what I wear on my free time, but I am actually quite active. 

IME, I’m far more desirous of going out and exploring new places on trips to other cities/regions than most people I’ve met who were more well-dressed.  If anything, it was the well-dressed people who tended to be layabouts because they’re afraid of dirtying/damaging their clothes or they were “above” such activities. 

A reason why I found the equating of indifferent dresser/slob == layabout to be quite odd.

Comment #167: exholt  on  09/05  at  07:10 PM

But Amanda said she didn’t mean someone who had no work ethic, generally. She meant someone who would rather stay at home and chill out in their spare time, rather than going out and doing stuff.

I don’t think anyone has a problem with Amanda regarding layabouts/homebodies as “dealbreakers,” or even slovenly dressing as a dealbreaker. It was the bizarre association of “slovenly/sandal-wearing = layabout homebody who doesn’t go out to dinner.”  Notice that the beard thing isn’t attracting much actual “dissent.” If she had said, “A person who wears a beard is like the type of guy who wouldn’t want to take a weekend trip to the beach, and that’s just not for me,” with followups from Amanda about how bearded people are guys who like to go hiking and mountain climbing and don’t enjoy the beach at all. And we’d all wonder what the heck she was talking about.

I’m tempted to put this in the category of a combination of NYC adopted-snobbery and that sort of middle class instinct that tells you to do stuff like “get dressed up” before you go shopping lest anyone mistake you for some who is lower-class and sits around the house in his underwear watching TV.

Comment #168: Tyro  on  09/05  at  07:11 PM

Eheh…I just realized that going “to the lake” might sound like the sort of thing an outdoorsy type would do. But Lake Michigan isn’t that kind of lake. I went there to drink a chai and read the New Yorker. 

Upon further reflection I wanted to emphasize that I think Amanda is definitely locally correct in her correlation of scruffy = layabout. NYC, Manhattan particularly, is not nice to the scruffy. (It isn’t very nice to the heavy, or the poor, either, frankly.)

I am not by any stretch a homebody by personality, to which my poor homebody boyfriend can attest. But I never left the house in NYC. Because I was not built, dressed, or funded properly for NYC, and outings there invariably left me miserable, anxious, and self-conscious.

It was a shock to me when I moved to the Midwest and suddenly remembered how much I loved going out to eat, to drink, to walk around, to meet people and hear bands and go to museums. Now you have to keep me tied to the radiator if you want me to stay home. But I’m still scruffy. grin

Comment #169: Well, what?  on  09/05  at  07:16 PM

What I find interesting about the “dealbreaker” phenomenon is how it works from the other direction. I really don’t have any dealbreakers apart from “don’t be a mean asshole”. For the most part, conservatives, racists, religious fundamentalists, sexists (which would be the “ladies against women” types in this instance, I guess, and I am constantly astounded at how many there are), homophobes, general rudeness, and other such fall somewhere along the “mean asshole” territory, so I find it a good catch-all. Aesthetic snobbery - particularly music snobbery - is tedious as hell, and I’m not the type to make someone listen to or watch or read something I like. Frankly, I don’t really care if she never gets into NRBQ or reads Douglas Hofstadter or watches “Kolchak: The Night Stalker”, but I’ll give everything a shot once. Hell, I’ve even watched “Jersey Shore” with a friend. Granted, there was weed involved, but still.

However, a number of my personality and satorial traits/quirks/flaws are dealbreakers, some y’all have mentioned. I’m Shemp Howard homely, so facial hair is a must. My entire wardrobe consists of cargo shorts, blue jeans, plain t-shirts and a couple flannel shirts, and I’ll only wear a suit if a family member gets married or dies. I have hair down to the center of my back, and not every woman thinks that belongs on a dude. I’m the type of guy who points out that there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden and that if you use highways you should like taxes, irritating the woo types and libertarians I attract because of the hair. I work solely to pay the rent, can’t stand crowds at clubs and events, and I would rather read than do just about anything else (except travel, but I prefer to travel alone and on my own whim).

Those are dealbreakers for a lot of people and it used to bother me as a young man until I realized, “Hey, Matt, you’re too stubborn and hard-headed to start dressing sharply or give up listening to as much country music as you do, for example, at someone else’s behest and you like what you like. If she don’t dig on that or can’t get over it, the relationship more than likely would’ve been a pain in the ass anyway. There will always be someone else.”

I realize that does sound like pure rationalization - especially considering I’ve been more or less single for the past decade punctuated by “friends with benefits” situations and extended hook-ups - but I think it generally works out in the end. You can’t expect someone to be perfect for you and still be herself while being a hard-ass about your own individuality. That way lies not hypocrisy but also massive drama, and I’d much rather be single.

Comment #170: Matt T.  on  09/05  at  07:50 PM

I could never date someone who always says, “Just to play devil’s advocate…” I have known a lot of people who do that, and I find that kind of patronizing, contrary attitude really annoying. Just contrary people in general; I can’t deal with them. I know a friend-of-a-friend who opposes gay marriage because he opposes marriage in general, man, because it’s so heteronormative, without considering the palpable benefits that marriage actually imparts to people or why those benefits might be important to some people.

I could also never date a religious person, a picky eater, someone who believes in conspiracies, anyone who is smug, anybody who is classist, racist, homophobic, transphobic or sexist. Obviously I wouldn’t date a Republican or a libertarian either, but most of them are covered by one of the categories I just listed.

When it comes to music, I could date somebody with different musical tastes, but not drastically different. For example, jazz isn’t really my thing, but I don’t mind it, I like it even, I just don’t love it like some people do. So if you’re really into jazz, we could probably get down, but if your favorite band was Creed, or Rascal Flats, that would be a deal breaker for me.

This is a weirdly specific deal breaker, but I couldn’t ever date someone who had an annoying, irrational phobia. I know someone who is afraid of cicadas, and will cry when she sees them, and even left her sister’s outdoor wedding before it was over because she saw a cicada. Or people who are afraid of flying, so they don’t fly anywhere. Uh, sorry, I like to leave the state every once in a while. If your fear is irrational and it’s really becoming an inconvenience to other people, and you refuse to take the necessary steps to overcome your fear, that’s not acceptable.

Comment #171: Jenny Dreadful  on  09/05  at  08:12 PM

I realize this is nitpick-y, but I just wanted to point out that earnest people can have a dark sense of humor, too. I mean, it’s fine if people don’t want to date or even be friends with earnest people, that’s their right, but yeah, not all of us are humorless or priggish.

Comment #172: curiouscliche  on  09/05  at  08:27 PM

The scruffy-layabouts debate touches a nerve for me too.  It’s too close to the idea that women are obliged to look nice for men at all times, otherwise they don’t deserve to even show their faces outside.  And it’s a specific kind of “nice” that women can’t ever win at- dress feminine or “sexy” and you’re an approved target for harrassment and nobody takes a girly-girl seriously anyway, dress butch and you’re an approved target for harassment and not socially acceptably dressed, wear “nice” shoes and forget about ever walking anywhere.  And as a woman, no matter how you dress that could be considered “nice”, it’s buying in to the unreasonable standards of beauty and the idea that that you should always, always be concerned about how you look to other people: that’s your prime duty as a sex object.  And for women far more than men, dressing up costs money and time.  My solution to the “women have to shave” problem is not to make men shave, but to reject that as an unreasonable demand.  My solution to the “women have to spend a disproportionate amount of time and money on looking socially acceptable” problem is not to make men dress up in heels too, it’s to reject that as an unreasonable demand.

Not everyone has the ability to reject those things (harassment, work, whatever) but certainly being overly concerned with complying with beauty standards (I’m not talking basic hygiene here) would be a warning sign that someone was more interested in being conventional and reaping the benefits of that than in challenging it in any way that was even a little difficult.  Dealbreaker!

(Also, they probably wouldn’t be interested in doing outdoorsy stuff.)

Comment #173: Nimravid  on  09/05  at  08:53 PM

“I don’t fathom cat-hating.  I think it’s based primarily on ignorance of how sweet cats are, but it’s really not my job to educate someone on this topic.”

Cat hating and misogyny seem to go hand in hand. Cats are very independent animals. They won’t play fetch. They don’t come when called (except for food.) They are epically lazy animals, spending most of their time asleep. They avoid people they don’t like and make no bones about it. Most importantly, they are emotionally stable and self-contained. Cats are natures anti-authoritarians and dominating assholes go into shit-fits over that simple fact. Thus cats are very useful tool in weeding out any over-bearing asshole trying to worm his or her way into your life.

Comment #174: James Ala  on  09/05  at  09:04 PM

Nothing wrong with it, chin!  I imagine an outdoorsy person would also be bored by me, a major city mouse.

That’s exactly how I took it. I know it’s hard to read tone, but I meant it in a kind of knowing way, not in a “and therefore you are bad” way.

I’m kind of in the middle myself. I like hiking and camping and would miss never doing it, but I’m not super hardcore and somebody who was would be bored with me. I like city stuff and nice restaurants too. I live in the city, have since I left home and wouldn’t have it any other way.

I think where you’re getting the pushback isn’t that people think you should date scruffy guys but that you’re drawing broader conclusions about the kind of person who is scruffy. Kind of like how you said guys with beards are making a mockery of women’s grooming standards. If a guy with a beard is cool with underarm hair, then he’s not making a mockery of anything. That doesn’t mean you have to like beards. It just means your broader generalization has some holes in it.

Comment #175: chingona  on  09/05  at  09:16 PM

Amanda @ 139: “You have proof that she said that?  A direct quote?  Because I read the piece and she actually said that one should state up-front if you’re a big geek, so that women who are not going to be into that can take a pass.”

I assume you mean me? Well, either way: “I later found out that Jon infiltrated his way into OKCupid dates with at least two other people I sort of know, including one of my co-workers. Mothers, warn your daughters!”

Comment #176: heresiarch  on  09/05  at  09:36 PM

@45: Alex Weaver: re Shorts

Its hot where I live, so its kind of unreasonable…my abject hatred of men in shorts…but it isn’t a deal breaker, just a turn-off…which, as we’ve established, everybody has the right to preferences. I’m not saying that EVER wearing shorts is profoundly wrong and demonstrates a man’s inferiority, just guys who constantly wear a combination of jean-shorts and dark shoes with white socks? Def turn-off. Maybe I was super reactionary on the shorts thing because I’ve been pressured recently to date this guy with a fairly obvious crush on me (who is a decent human being and kind of funny), but who I do not find attractive AT ALL. He wears shorts and white socks, but that’s not the essential reason why I don’t find him attractive or right for me…I won’t go into it…but the social pressure to go on a date with him was for a while quite intense, coming from several quarters and primarily because “gee, he likes you so much, shouldn’t you give him a chance?” Which is tiring.

@ #71: James: re Science Fiction

Yes, definitely Science Fiction counts! Any fiction, really…although as one other commenter mentioned, having a balance of non-fiction is important too, but SOME fiction reading is important to me because…well, reading fiction is very important for my own interior world.

@ #178: curiouscliche Earnest(ness) & sense of humor

I didn’t mean to imply that all earnest people lack for a sense of humor, I was just trying to illustrate a point about why sense of humor is important, no specific dis to the earnest.

Comment #177: Thealogian  on  09/05  at  09:51 PM

@181 - That’s how I see it, too. I’m not sure why the beard thing didn’t happen, actually, since someone brought it up even before I commented on the not dressing = not wanting to go out thing. (Personally, I don’t go out when I’m not with someone or when I’m poor. The state of my wardrobe is largely besides the point.)

Comment #178: LC  on  09/05  at  10:06 PM

I kind of fail to get how someone can hate cats. I mean, I wouldn’t call myself a cat fan by any means, but I don’t have any problems with them; they’re just kind of there, and sometimes they’ll play with you. That’s not only not a dealbreaker, but 99% of the time it’s a nonissue.

Comment #179: BrianX  on  09/05  at  10:14 PM

On another note, something that irks me (but doesn’t necessarily rise to level of “dealbreaker”) is the question I’ve gotten on a few first dates: “why are you still single?”

I feel a similar way when a man tells me “You’re not like other women” and expects me to take it as a compliment.  It’s not an immediate deal-breaker, but it definitely makes me suspicious.  The only way that can be construed as a compliment is if we have both agreed that “other women” are bad and it’s better to not be like them.  I always wish I could say “What’s wrong with other women?” but it usually catches me by surprise.  I feel like they’re assuming that women are a homogeneous group of whiny, greedy, shallow idiots and they’re surprised that I’m just a normal human being.  Now, being a human, I am different than other women in the same way that I’m different than other people.  And I’m even weirder than most people.  So it’s not a dealbreaker because in some cases it could be just a poorly-worded way of pointing out that I am unique.  But any compliment that rests on women as a group being something undesirable really throws up a red flag for me.

Comment #180: bananacat  on  09/05  at  10:16 PM

This thread was useful for me.  I started out being ok with dealbreakers, and now I’m suspicious of them.  I don’t have all that many of them, basically, I want a woman who’s taller than 5’9, not skinny, and who reads/enjoys athletic stuff.

However, I think dealbreakers are problematic because they tend to be place-cards for sentiments that might look poorly on the speaker.  I also think it’s problematic because we’re all talking to each other, talking about roughly the within the same marginal borders, but in the wider world, most people have dealbreakers that we Pandagoners be very uncomfortable with.  The thread about Amanda‘s sentiments about clothing and layabout was seriously illuminating, because so many of these dealbreakers have underlying conditions, like an ability to buy nice clothes.

I then conclude that we have to be conscious about dealbreakers that are about signaling, because that can validate our own stereotypes (or reasoning thereof).  Flags should go up on more than just an unreasoning hatred of rap or country.  We should also be very cautious about making conclusions based on passive intel gathering of other people.

Comment #181: shah8  on  09/05  at  10:30 PM

@Dana: I have occasionally engaged with the spouses of conservative men whom I know.  To a person, they have had very low opinions of men in general.  In addition, all of them had highly gendered marriages where societal roles were followed pretty closely, so the need for communication was much lower than in more peer-oriented marriages.

I’ve met a few conservative men who were utterly different in person as well.  I came to understand that their online time was used in a similar fashion as you describe, to burn off their more vile and hateful feelings, so that they can engage with people in a day-to-day fashion without seriously examining their politics.  Those guys tended to have status in some conservative organization and would lose status and/or a lot of friends if they let their basic decency in ordinary life affect their public opinions.

Comment #182: Punditus Maximus  on  09/05  at  10:31 PM

Dealbreakers are a fun combination of statements of basic values and utterly arbitrary compatibility issues.

Comment #183: Punditus Maximus  on  09/05  at  10:35 PM

#186: bananacat ““You’re not like other women” and expects me to take it as a compliment.”

I fucking hate that too and quite honestly, most women I know have received that exact “compliment” by some dude at some point in their life…so, I guess “most women” are like “most women” or rather most women are human beings rather than some tv-generated version of our sex. Its such an unexamined viewpoint. That’s prolly another deal-breaker, a guy who has never thought about gender roles before.

Comment #184: Thealogian  on  09/05  at  10:57 PM

<blockquote>What annoys me is what I perceive as the insistence that we let this contextual kindness creep into and dilute our everyday discourse about the things we like and things we care about. It’s annoying because there’s this admonition - which you did express - that stating some opinion as a bold statement on the quality of a thing somehow gives the impression that this is an objective fact. I think that’s bullshit, and it’s insulting to the intelligence of the people you interact with.
Comment #85: grolby on 09/05 at 03:18 PM<blockquote>
Either it should be verboten everywhere, or men and women should equally be allowed to make such statements. But right now, men are generally not called to task on this kind of statement, and women are, as if their opinions are supposed to represent all women.  Yet another xkcd 385.

When someone says “scallops suck” I say “well noooo I love them.  And have you seen film of them SWIMMING omg!”  Because I don’t normally take it personally.

The whole rejection of scruffy/layabout thing isn’t suburban by any means!  I see the scruffy/layabout types slouching their way into the local Red Lobster or Friday’s or whatever.  The sartorially lazy khaki shorts and sloppy tee-shirt/polo is the men’s uniform of the day every day at the mall.  I mean, remember it is Amanda making this her dealbreaker, and as I recall she’s hetero so no one’s aiming this at women.

You can wear nice looking clean clothing that isn’t tight, so I don’t think the idea of dressing aesthetically is discriminatory against disabled people. 

If however you’re seriously unable to do much going out because your energy level or disability makes it difficult or impossible for you, then there’s no reason to bristle at someone making “able to run around” or “likes mountain climbing” or “goes out to dinner 3-5 times a week” their dealbreaker.  It would be a serious dealbreaker for the less active person to have someone nagging them to go out every 20 minutes, wouldn’t it?

Comment #185: oldfeminist  on  09/05  at  11:53 PM

The thread about Amanda‘s sentiments about clothing and layabout was seriously illuminating, because so many of these dealbreakers have underlying conditions, like an ability to buy nice clothes.
Comment #187: shah8 on 09/05 at 10:30 PM

Nice clothes <> well dressed.  You can wear expensive boring shit, or interesting but not very expensive stuff.  If you think you have to wear Chanel, or Izod, think again.  I like someone who thinks about what he wears regardless of what he can afford.

Comment #186: oldfeminist  on  09/06  at  12:01 AM

ks: it was some strange incoherent argument about how light cones prove that everything that ever will exist already did exist in the past, so a fetus is really the actual human it would be in the future, except if you abort it, in which case you have ripped the fabric of space time in addition to being a babykiller. Or something. Anyways, it was a deal breaker. I didn’t know what light cones were at the time, but I do now—and that argument seems extra silly.

Comment #187: t-ster  on  09/06  at  12:04 AM

I’m tempted to put this in the category of a combination of NYC adopted-snobbery and that sort of middle class instinct that tells you to do stuff like “get dressed up” before you go shopping lest anyone mistake you for some who is lower-class and sits around the house in his underwear watching TV.

This attitude is mostly a recent phenomenon of the last 10-15 years and has been cited as a symptom of the very gentrification of various NYC neighborhoods that I and some working-class friends have observed….and in their cases…bitterly complain about.  I can sympathize with them as even in the NYU/East Village area….the fashion obsessiveness and the need for its denizens to act as fashion police was weird as I experienced several years back. 

It took me aback as just several years before that point in the mid-‘90s….no one in the East Village would give you crap over your fashion choices….or the lack thereof. 

Upon further reflection I wanted to emphasize that I think Amanda is definitely locally correct in her correlation of scruffy = layabout. NYC, Manhattan particularly, is not nice to the scruffy. (It isn’t very nice to the heavy, or the poor, either, frankly.)

I am not by any stretch a homebody by personality, to which my poor homebody boyfriend can attest. But I never left the house in NYC. Because I was not built, dressed, or funded properly for NYC, and outings there invariably left me miserable, anxious, and self-conscious.

That may be the NYC(Manhattan/Trendy Brooklyn) nowadays…but that wasn’t always the case.  Growing up in the ‘80s till the early-mid ‘90s….my friends and I would wear the scruffiest hand-me-down clothes and naturally ripped up jeans(From actual wear and tear…not ripped at the factory) without much of an issue.  Only insults/sneers we’d receive are from the few we’d disdained as “Yuppies”....and we’d actually get off from offending their sensibilities. 

I still see plenty of scruffy dressed people in the NYC area….though it has noticeably become less acceptable to do so.  Could be a byproduct of the gentrification in various NYC neighborhoods.

Comment #188: exholt  on  09/06  at  12:29 AM

I tend to think of it with a puzzle-piece metaphor.

We’re all of us individuals with highly specialized likes, dislikes, hobbies, lifestyles, et cetera. The point of dating, for most of us, involves finding a person who fits well with us to have a mutually-beneficial relationship with. No puzzle piece is better or worse than all the other puzzle pieces, but some will fit together well and some won’t, and the same is true of people.

(Although the analogy breaks down at some point due to that some dealbreakers DO make someone a worse person.)

If somebody’s not right for me, either I’m gonna be miserable or they’re gonna be miserable, and I’d rather neither be the case. Which is only part kindness on my part—-I also don’t want somebody pretending to like something or resentfully doing what I want while slowly deciding that I owe them for all the trouble they’ve gone to to make me happy. Especially when one considers that they’re taking up space that could be occupied by someone who’s actually, really into it or is happy to provide what I want in the relationship. They’re wasting my time, and they’re wasting theirs.

And if anybody’s of the opinion that being single is such a horrible fate that sucking it up and pretending to be fascinated by stuff that bores the hell out of you is preferable to being alone, they’re probably not that interesting anyway, if their lives are so empty and boring that they need a significant other to fill it.

Comment #189: Kyra  on  09/06  at  12:32 AM

Comment #193: t-ster

Ouch.

Whatever our arrow of time, our lightcones, they contain our death, everything dies and in some instances death is an abortion, so fail to Mr. Physics.

Note to kill argument: while I lend personhood to potential persons, I do think that people carrying that potential person gets to abort said person anytime for any reason.

Comment #190: R.T.  on  09/06  at  12:50 AM

oldfeminist, it was the whole “well fitting"part that really got to me.  And I’ve rarely seen average people of working class means who wears well fitting clothes often.

Comment #191: shah8  on  09/06  at  12:57 AM

I actually have a few other deal-breakers that I rarely mention because it usually doesn’t go over well, but if I can find anyone understanding, this is the place for it.

I would not have a long-term, serious relationship (to the point of living together) with a man who is allergic to cats.

I would not have kids with (and probably wouldn’t live with) a man who works long hours, travels a lot for work, or has a very risky job.

Yes, I know that people can’t control their allergies, and I totally support people like ER doctors, active duty military people, and police officers.  But I intend to always have cats and I want my potential kids to have a certain type of father.  A lot of people hear this stuff and see sex as a tool that women use to change behavior by withholding it, so in that context it would be bad for me to “punish” men for something they can’t control or for doing something noble.  But I don’t think all women want the same thing and I don’t think that all women should have these things as dealbreakers.  I just know that I could not have a compatible relationship with that type of man.  I don’t want these men to quit their jobs; I just want them to find someone else to date.

I guess with a lot of other dealbreakers there is the implication that if the man just changed enough or just jumped through enough hoops, he could have some chance at winning me as a prize, and it’s considered really harsh to just be straightforward and say there’s no chance of something working out.

Comment #192: bananacat  on  09/06  at  01:15 AM

Note to kill argument: while I lend personhood to potential persons, I do think that people carrying that potential person gets to abort said person anytime for any reason.

It’s quaint in a disgusting way that anti-choice propaganda is pervasive enough that you are arguing on their terms.  Babies are not aborted, people are not aborted, fetuses are not aborted, and embryos are not aborted.  Pregnancies, missions, processes are aborted.  You’re using the wrong type of direct object.

Comment #193: bananacat  on  09/06  at  01:17 AM

@ #199: bananacat

I’m not arguing their terms. I’ve decided that potential people are persons, but the person carrying them has the right to their bodies and get to control their act of reproduction by carrying to term or aborting.

My morality includes the killing and murder of another being. I own guns in carefully selected calibers and launching platforms for the explicit purpose of ending human life. Stretch that morality a bit, and it can include abortion and my personal acknowledgement of the personhood of a potential person.

‘Kay now? We can all drop it.

Comment #194: R.T.  on  09/06  at  01:41 AM

RT, I know exactly what you mean and I agree 100%.  I think arguing the morality of abortion is easier when you just grant that an embryo is a life.  It clearly is a life/alive, so what?  That doesn’t change a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy.

Comment #195: stubbles  on  09/06  at  01:54 AM

Here here: feminist, liberal, electronic/dance and hip-hop, and t-shirt and jeans but high-end fitted tees/jeans. I agree, no settling in dating, OR EVEN, no dating at all.

Comment #196: FYouMudFlaps  on  09/06  at  02:40 AM

Be that as it may, Miss, I’m still reading your description and thinking, “Someone who generally would not want to do things I like to do, in no small part because you have to put your shoes on.”

Have you really never met someone who does want to go out to dinner at the places you like, but who wants to do so while wearing sandals? Maybe where you live that’s really the case, which would be an interesting fact. But overall throughout the US, saying that someone who prefers wearing sandals won’t want to go out is just untrue on the face of it. You are totally welcome to hate sandals and to hate people who don’t like going out, but those are two separate things. It seems like you’re becoming defensive about that one little thing instead of just admitting you said something silly and what you really meant was that you just don’t like either of those categories, whether they overlap or not. But saying you don’t like sandals because no one in sandals ever goes out to dinner just doesn’t make any sense.

In fact I would think that people who like sandals would be especially likely to go out to dinner “just because the weather is nice” because when the weather is nice you don’t HAVE to put on other shoes and you can go out to dinner in your sandals very comfortably! Going out to dinner when the weather is NOT nice is what would require other shoes.

But Amanda said she didn’t mean someone who had no work ethic, generally. She meant someone who would rather stay at home and chill out in their spare time, rather than going out and doing stuff. To me, that’s a homebody.

Yeah, that’s a better word. But I can’t help thinking of all the hardworking people I know, and the fact that the ones who I think dress scruffily at work and at parties are the ones going out to concerts and shows and clubs all the time, while the ones who dress professionally are generally the ones hanging out at home with their significant other when they’re not at work.

One is totally entitled to like or dislike certain types of dress. But when one states that “people who dress like X exhibit Y behavior” that’s not an opinion, that’s a factual statement, and if its just not true in general, then people are going to point it out. That doesn’t mean they’re offended at the opinion, it means the factual assertion was just false. There’s no need to be defensive about it. Maybe that factual claim was true specifically in Manhatten - I’d be willing to believe that. But overall, its just not true, as many people have testified to.

Comment #197: geogami  on  09/06  at  08:02 AM

Back to the more central topic, I love that some of the dealbreakers are turning out to be almost diametrically opposed to each other.

Some of us won’t go out with an unadventurous eater, others won’t go out with someone who tries to persuade them to try new foods they find unappealing. Some need someone to enjoy the outdoors with, others would tell the same outdoorsy types to take a hike (ho ho). Those protesting against women’s audacity to have dealbreakers would pair Ms. Squeamish Mountaineer with Mr. Stays Indoors And Eats Jellied Eels when they could both be so much happier in other partnerships.

And Bananacat, I love your point about the woman-as-prize trope. Look at nearly every film ever: if he completes the quest, he gets the girl! The prettier the girl, the more difficult the quest is allowed to be, which is why fat or old or “ugly” women having standards causes even more rage. But even a stunningly desirable trophy sort of woman isn’t supposed to have a say in who wins her.

Comment #198: MissPrism  on  09/06  at  08:23 AM

I had someone on Twitter point out that if I’d said “homebody” instead of “layabout”, this thread would be 100 comments shorter.  True, and makes me sad.  The eagerness to read me with the least amount of generosity possible shows that the idea that women have an absolute right to find something—-in this case, a slovenly attitude towards appearance and clothes—-unattractive still gives people the chills and they read it as ungenerously as they possibly can.  I think it’s wise when you’re saying, “Yes, you have a right not to date anyone you don’t like, but….,” it’s honestly time to slow your roll.  It’s a good rule when you’re saying, “I’m not racist/sexist/etc., but…..”

Comment #199: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/06  at  08:48 AM

I don’t like cats.  My dislike grows into something stronger when the owner is the kind who allows their cat to jump all over their kitchen counters and have their noses and tongues into dishes, food, etc.  I also gag on the feel of cat hair in my throat.  So now you “know” of a cat-hater.

I have a similar list, though I couldn’t care less about music, and care very much about reading.  And what’s on that reading list is equally important.  I do expect to be able to discuss my reading with my SO. 

No republicans, anti-choicers, union-bashers, etc.  The usual list for an ultra-liberal.  Pretty much everything has been covered.  I don’t care about facial hair one way or the other.

I also won’t go on second or third dates with men who don’t pay.  I’ve made the mistake in the past of doing the, oh but you’re a feminist how can you subscribe to those old-fashioned gender roles when dating?  But the fact is that any man who didn’t pay early on, was cheap and very selfish and I lived to regret the relationship.  Once we’re involved, I’ll pay, but early on, if they don’t, then they don’t see me again.  And I don’t care who doesn’t like that.  A man who won’t pay for a date with you, in my experience, will always think about himself first, put his needs before yours, and be completely unwilling to sacrifice anything for you or your happiness.  Plus, cheap men.  It’s just a turnoff.

Now that I’m in my 40’s, if I were to start dating again (I’m currently very off the market), I might relax that rule, but only for much younger men.  In fact, I’d definitely be interested in switching up traditional gender roles in that manner. But only in that manner.  Everyone else pays.

Comment #200: Simone  on  09/06  at  08:50 AM

I’m sick of justifying why I want someone who cleans up nicely.  I do NOT owe a man my time on the 5% chance that his sandals-and-stoned look doesn’t mean that he’s like most sandals-and-stoned guys, in that you invite him to a party and he’ll only go if there’s no chance that he has to wear a clean shirt to it.  Why should I suffer through being physically unattracted to him on the off chance that his clothing choices don’t usually mean what that clothing choice usually means?  Jesus H. Christ, what part of “women get to say no” isn’t computing?

Comment #201: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/06  at  08:51 AM

I’ll add that there are probably some guys who dress like frat daddy douchebags who aren’t actually frat daddy douchebags.  I also refuse to date them, both because their clothes are a visual turn-off, and also because if they wanted to attract women not into frat daddy douchebags, they’d dress that way.  Sheesh.  Same principle.  A guy rocking the stoner-on-the-porch look is sending a signal.  If he doesn’t want it to be read that way, he may rethink it.

Comment #202: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/06  at  08:53 AM

But Amanda! Dontchaknow that guys, no matter how out-of-shape, unhygienic, misinformed, and unfashionable totally deserve a woman who’s smokin’ hot? Why you gotta be a hater?

Comment #203: Mighty Ponygirl  on  09/06  at  09:03 AM

I’ve decided that potential people are persons

And I’ve decided that dirt is potential food, so now I only eat dirt and my grocery budget has shrunk to almost zero! There’s just no end to the uses of this kind of “reasoning”.

Comment #204: Steve LaBonne  on  09/06  at  09:06 AM

I don’t think you have to defend anything!

Personally, I love men who wear very expensive suits.  I find that very hot.  Problem is, most guys who wear suits like that are assholes.  I also love guys who have the blue collar look, especially if they’re actually blue collar.  Union guys in jeans driving a pick up truck that actually has a use?  Hot.  Especially the ones who pull over to argue with Teabaggers, and I’ve seen this.  Men on the west coast in shorts and flip flops?  Many of them, in my experience, are not only hot, but loaded.

I guess I just find men hot.  But dirty clothes of any type?  No.  I put that more under hygiene though.  Tons of clean underwear, and no sniffing to see if they pass muster, clean shirts, clean pants, and daily bathing is a must for me.  I can get into all different types of men after that criteria is met though.  But that’s me!

Comment #205: Simone  on  09/06  at  09:09 AM

I really think you’re reading too much into the objections. I don’t think anyone wants you to lower your standards and date scruffy guys in sandals. The “but” isn’t that you should give them a chance. The “but” is that anytime you make a generalization, anybody that generalization doesn’t apply to is going to squawk. You’d squawk too, if the tasteful, closed-toe shoe was on the other foot.

Comment #206: chingona  on  09/06  at  09:15 AM

Jesus H. Christ, what part of “women get to say no” isn’t computing?

The problem isn’t that you don’t want to date them, but that by putting them down, you’re making other women not want to date them and forcing them to be alone for the rest of their lives. Because if one person in the world has a negative opinion of your attractiveness, it means you’ll never get laid.

Comment #207: junk science  on  09/06  at  09:22 AM

@ #206: Simone

Wow, I can’t believe it actually took until comment 206 to mention etiquette of paying for the first date! This thread is about done, I’m sure (especially considering that the nitpicking between layabout and homebody totally jacked the thread, I got what Amanda meant), but if anyone else would like to discuss the 1st or 2nd date paying thing, let’s.

Confession: I’m bollacks at that. I’ve heard too many guys complain about gold-diggers to really disentangle paying etiquette from entitlement. This is an issue that still confuses me. I generally do the reach for the wallet thing, if he insists, I let him pay. But, I have also noticed that if a guy doesn’t pay, he tends to lack initiative or drive (or I’m simply not attracted to him for some reason), maybe its that he’s cheap? But, I don’t want my very small data-set to become some sort of rule. I guess like everything in life, its all situational, but still, I would like to know how other feminists and feminist minded-dudes approach the whole 1st date paying thing? Anyone want to chime in?

Comment #208: Thealogian  on  09/06  at  09:32 AM

The subject of deal breakers is interesting because it can reveal so much about the person with them. I had a few myself, but they usually came about after I had dated someone with a certain trait or interest I didn’t like. Then I’d say, “never again”. The hard part about listing deal breakers out is that it will always sound kind of douchey to someone because either I have one of those traits or I’m with someone with one.

Personally, I tried to stay away from making deal breakers based on appearance because it feels too much like judging a book by its cover for me. But things like being a cat-hater (I dated one in high school) or a HUGE sports fan are major turn-offs for me. I have two cats and working our social life around all of a dude’s sports watching would suck.

Comment #209: Livi  on  09/06  at  09:40 AM

Thealogian, it’s a minefield on a feminist site!  Maybe anywhere these days.  It’s great being over 40 because I don’t care!  Gold digger is definitely something that is going to be thrown at you if you state outright that you’re not into cheap guys and guys who don’t pay for early dates.  But having suffered through a few relationships with cheap guys in my younger years, and having learned it’s not just money they’re cheap with, I don’t care.  It’s a definite deal-breaker.  You will definitely also find men who will guilty you into believing that you have to screw men who don’t pay for dates because if you don’t, you only care about money.

Fuck em!  Or to be more accurate; don’t fuck em!

Comment #210: Simone  on  09/06  at  09:42 AM

Here in Utah I am pretty sure I have a couplle of major deal breakers, I am an atheist and I reallly don’t want children, the strange thing is that people I date seem to assume I will change, especially about the kid thing. 

For me deal breakers are anyone that doesn’t like cats, which is surprisingly common among women, people that go to doctor more than once a month, not because they are sick but because they read about some new test on webmd.  And Jimmy Buffet fans, trust me they are worse than phish fans.

Comment #211: John Rove  on  09/06  at  09:52 AM

@214: Thealogian

I’ve usually dated friends, so we just continued splitting things once we started dating.  I usually just ask directly what I owe if I don’t get to the bill first.  I don’t think it maps to precisely the same shortcomings (and I really hope this doesn’t become another tedious derail), but my red flag in those situations is someone who doesn’t tip well.  Most of the places I can afford to go, the difference between being generous and stingy is only a dollar or two.  I enjoy being generous, and if I need to save money I give up something myself, rather than taking it from someone else.  I want to be with people who are basically the same way.

Since I’m young (24) and the economy sucks, I’ve also dated a bunch of people who are un- or underemployed.  If that’s the case I want them to accept me buying dinner sometimes, because I don’t mind and if we only went out when they could afford to go, we would literally always stay in.  But even though I don’t want to keep score on this stuff, I have noticed that the people who accepted too easily or didn’t find some free way to show their appreciation turned out to suck in other ways as well.

Comment #212: themmases  on  09/06  at  09:54 AM

@207 & 208:  I think most of the discussion is because it has been interpreted as a value judgement about people who dress a certain way (i.e. people who wear sandals or shorts are lazy/stoners/frat daddy douchebags (great phrase BTW)), and the people for whom these labels do not apply, got a little tweaked by it (myself included at first).

As for myself, I will throw my hat in with all the people for whom being a Republican/Libertarian/Randroid/Teabagger or a bigot of any stripe is a dealbreaker.  I have to put up with enough of that shit from my family that I’m not about to put up with it in a SO.  Appearance wise, the main dealbreaker is disheveled hair or clothing and noticeable body odor (when not exercising).  Activities wise, mild geekiness would be a plus, certainly in respect to movies, music, and video games, but I’m probably not a big enough geek to have much in common with someone who was way into comics, or roleplaying games (non-video game RPGs that is), or sci-fi/fantasy.

Comment #213: progrocker  on  09/06  at  09:58 AM

@193 -

Ah hah!

I wouldn’t be light cones—those are used to explain things in general relativity.  (Essentially, a light cone is used to show a physical location and time, indicating where it is possible to exist at a given time from a known point in time where existence is established…  the curvture of space near a graviational well will tilt the cone.)

It is probably closer to string theory and parallel universes, so from each point there are an infinite number of parallel universes from which each potential alternate reality can exist.  So, the so-called physics theory of pro-life is just that.

To which the answer is obvious—we’re in this reality, not some other, alternate reality.  Deal with it.

Comment #214: James  on  09/06  at  09:59 AM

I’ve always been of the “Whoever asks, pays” thing for dates? That’s when it is a more formalized, “I want to take you out somewhere” kind of thing.

That probably comes from an early gf who was working while I was an undergrad and so made vastly more money than I did. When we went out somewhere (movies, what have you) we each paid our own way. When she wanted to go somewhere nice I couldn’t afford, she paid. When I wanted to take her somewhere I thought fun, I paid, but budgeted for that.  The next woman I was involved with insisted on NEVER letting me pay my own way, which I found super creepy and controlling, so there’s that, too.

I think I’ve sort of internalized that ever since. Someone who expects me to pay because “I’m the man” will almost certainly be a dealbreaker for me.  Someone who expects me to pay because I’m the one who chose the place and asked them to come with me? (In the early dating phase?) That seems perfectly reasonable.

Comment #215: LC  on  09/06  at  10:01 AM

Nitpick time: Amanda means compatibility in BANDS or commercial musical genres, if you want to be precise. But music? Not unless you actually play an instrument or sing on pitch or know a little bit about the technicalities of music theory or production can you really claim that word. Amanda’s scarcely shown any knowledge of, or even interest in, such things. (A must on my personal compatibility checklist). It’s of a piece with her poor cultural education (which accounts also for her adolescent and 19th-century whiggish attitude toward “religion”).

Amanda’s a band snob and unaware of a century of historical inquiry into the complex interaction of science and religion in the western world since the popular embrace of the Draper-White thesis (look it up) over a century or ago now.

Comment #216: wapsie  on  09/06  at  10:41 AM

@222, who cares?  I don’t know if you’d call her a band snob or just someone who believes that, when it comes to music, her taste = good taste.  She believes that anyone who doesn’t share those tastes, likes “terrible music”.  But in order to care, I’d have to care what Amanda thinks about my taste in music.  I don’t.  Personally I think her taste in music is laughably terrible.  It sucks beyond the telling of it.  I don’t bother reading her music posts because they bore me to tears. 

When you stop caring what others think, it’s amazing how much your life will improve, if only because you won’t be annoyed at people all of the time.

Comment #217: Simone  on  09/06  at  10:48 AM

When you stop caring what others think, it’s amazing how much your life will improve, if only because you won’t be annoyed at people all of the time.

That’s a little too easy. I think some opinions are more worthwhile than others, and I like to take the time to find out why someone disagrees with me or doesn’t like my taste in something. A one-size-fits-all answer is rarely useful to me.

Comment #218: junk science  on  09/06  at  10:53 AM

I take it back when I said I didn’t care much about music, because I’ve realised Wapsie’s attitude toward it would be a total dealbreaker for me! I’m reminded of the"guilty pleasures” thread and the fact that very few people with a real love of or talent for music feel the need to be such a rude, aggressive poseur.

Comment #219: MissPrism  on  09/06  at  10:58 AM

In online dating, I’ve often pushed myself to go beyond my personal dealbreaker criteria and branch out a little (especially after now seeing the same profiles I saw a year-and-a-half ago before my last relationship.)

And I’ve found that my dealbreakers are there for a damn good reason. The combination of a quick profile, some photos, and some percentages from some questions really does work to show if someone is right(ish) for me.

As for the appearance of men thing, I know exactly what Amanda is getting at. There are times when I don’t give a crap about my appearance, and those are times when I’m not good company. Confidence, mood, depression, happiness, and other things are very much on display, and it’s obvious that she and I wouldn’t “click” if we saw each other from across the room. I might like her dress, but see her as not my type. She would scoff at my comfortable shoes (sandals, most likely) and know I’m not her type, either. The problem so many men (and quite a few women) have is that this would suggest to them that she’s being too picky and I’m not doing the correct pick-up-artist things. But fuck that! If I wanted to be attractive to every attractive woman I met, I’d drive myself crazy. There are enough women for me, men for her, and everyone who actively tries usually succeeds eventually. And please don’t whine if it hasn’t worked, because that’s just begging for a pityfuck. And that’s actually less gratifying than masturbation for both the pityfuckee and the pityfucker. And no, you don’t need to ask how I know that.

As for cats, I don’t like them. I don’t hate them, but I’d rather not have an animal that shits in a box, has piss that could remove wallpaper from the odor alone, and scratches the hell out of things. If you like that, fine. But my experiences have tended to be with women who don’t smell that anymore (kind of like smokers, in a way.) I’m also allergic to them. Don’t really like any pets, to tell the truth. But they like me, I enjoy their company, and they are fun to play with. With pets, I’m like the fun uncle who doesn’t have kids of his own.

Comment #220: 3letterjon  on  09/06  at  10:59 AM

a century of historical inquiry into the complex interaction of science and religion in the western world since the popular embrace of the Draper-White thesis (look it up) over a century or ago now.

This reminds me why I appreciate people like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins so much, regardless of whatever disagreements I might have with them. When they talk about religion and science, they never, ever say “look it up.” They actually have arguments and present them honestly. And oddly enough, honesty and transparency go a hell of a long way in a good faith argument.

Comment #221: junk science  on  09/06  at  11:03 AM

I do NOT owe a man my time on the 5% chance that his sandals-and-stoned look doesn’t mean that he’s like most sandals-and-stoned guys, in that you invite him to a party and he’ll only go if there’s no chance that he has to wear a clean shirt to it.

And that is why nobody said anything about forcing you to date scruffsters. Also I would like to note that “sandals-and-stoned” is different from, “wears unflattering t-shirts,” which is more where you kicked off your objection. Fuck, if you had said your dealbreakers were “lazy antisocial slackasses who dress like shit” (which, am I not correct, IS your actual dealbreaker?) there would have been no comment whatsoever.

Instead you made a conclusive jump which is, outside of NYC and maybe like France, basically, totally nonsensical. It’s like if you said, “I can’t date bicyclists because they are all into furry porn.” Surprise surprise, some people went, “guh?” It doesn’t mean, “YOU MUST DATE ALL CYCLISTS NOW.” It means, “what a weird thing to assume about someone, but whatever, rock on.”

Comment #222: Well, what?  on  09/06  at  11:05 AM

Tyro @ 56 on men not reading fiction:

This is one of those things where there is no “why”—it just “is”... it’s because the men you know are like most other men. Men, statistically, read less fiction, and the market for fiction leans heavily in favor of women. I think this deserves a pandagon post of its own.

I have an uncle who didn’t read fiction, I should say pointedly wouldn’t read fiction, and it was because he saw it as something lesser than non-fiction.  It was frivolous and didn’t have the gravitas of non-fiction; it didn’t have any purpose.  He was a raging misogynist also, so I have no doubt that he saw fiction as something for women.

That’s what I’d talk about in a post about men not reading fiction.  I’d also throw in something about men writing fiction.  But you’ve pronounced it as something that “just is”, that doesn’t have a “why” behind it.  So what would you write about in a post on something that “just is”?

Comment #223: rain  on  09/06  at  11:52 AM

Thealogian @ 214: I have had more of the opposite experience, but this may be because I grew up in the south—a guy insisting on paying the entire bill on a first date can make me uncomfortable, because I’ve had bad experiences with dudes being all freaky and controlling about money and that correlates to larger ladyhate.  I just can’t stand the feeling that letting some stranger buy my dinner might give said stranger the idea that he’s entitled to grope me, so I’d rather pre-empt it. With a first date, I think splitting the check is the way to go under normal circumstances, but I’ve had guys even here in LA act like I’m some magical breed of unicorn woman for even suggesting that.

The “who asks, pays” rule is also a good one, but given that it’s still usually guys doing the asking, it seems a little unfair, at least at the initial dating stage, and assuming both parties are gainfully employed and all. The way I see it is if we make plans, we’ve made an agreement to go out, so who did the initial asking is kind of irrelevant, unless one person suggests doing something that is very expensive (which would also weird me out on a first date).

Comment #224: chareth cutestory  on  09/06  at  12:18 PM

  I actually never thought much about what I would consider to be deal breakers. There are things that I find attractive but I never thought much about what I find so unattractive that I would end the relationship over it. I suppose a brief list would be:

  1. A woman wants me to shave my beard. I wanted to have a beard since I first started growing facial hair, which was when I was twelve. I had facial hair since I was nineteen. I’m nearly 31. My beard is an important part of my appearance and strive to keep it well-groomed.

  2. Like many people, I really couldn’t stand dating a person who identified with the right politically.

  3. I wouldn’t want to date a person who is careless with their health.

Comment #225: Lee  on  09/06  at  12:19 PM

Smoking, religion and National Socialism.
I can pretty much tolerate anything else.

Comment #226: aiabx  on  09/06  at  12:29 PM

I think you might be unfair about the “beards as mockery” thing though; hate on beards by all means, but it’s not really a given guy’s fault that hair grows in large quantities on his face. I’m sure some guys are douches about them/making their girlfriends shave, but I don’t think growing one is a defacto “suck it, ladeez!” statement.  Of course, I am an unabashed goatee fan myself and married a dude who, to my eyes, looks *all wrong* when he shaves off his facial hair. The one time he did, I begged him to grow it back.

Comment #227: emjaybee  on  09/06  at  12:32 PM

Yeah, this is one of those threads where the conversation veered from the original topic of dealbreakers for potential dates into “hey wait a minute, what’s wrong with scruffy dressers??” as a whole, having nothing to do with dating. Kind of like what happened to the Bereznak piece.

What about dealbreakers for potential friends as opposed to potential lovers? Do the standards become more stringent or less? I could see people going either way. On the one hand if all that’s at stake is one more acquaintance gained or lost, then why waste your time on anyone that annoys you? On the other hand, since less is at stake, it might be worth tolerating some interesting social incompatibilities for the sake of variety.

Comment #228: Dr. Locrian  on  09/06  at  12:34 PM

As for cats, I don’t like them. I don’t hate them, but I’d rather not have an animal that shits in a box, has piss that could remove wallpaper from the odor alone, and scratches the hell out of things.

From my own experience,  a well-maintained catbox is less of a smell problem than a dog who does his stuff on the newspaper(I swear, my Yorkies’ fecal odor could violated the Geneva Conventions against gas warfare if they were deployed in a concentrated form), and I’ve know a lot of cats who managed not to scratch anything indoors except their scratching post.

But music? Not unless you actually play an instrument or sing on pitch or know a little bit about the technicalities of music theory or production can you really claim that word.

Okay, waspie, I’ll play:

Explain what ‘bimodal’ music is, and give a composer/performer who has used it in their works.

BTW, Amanda does one of those guitar ‘video’ games so I’m not sure that her awareness of musical technique is quite as benighted as you would make it out to be.

http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/11/21/6348/

The game is heavy on cooperation, so it seems to me that it would be a great game to buy kids, since most games lean heavily on competition. Which is fine, but it’s nice to balance it out with a game that encourages cooperation and teamwork. In Shitbird, I play guitar and Marc plays drums, and you have to do things like rescue each other when someone is flailing, get unison points, and time your overdrives together. When you’re on fire, it’s really exciting (at times, you know you’re kicking ass because the crowd starts to sing along, a nice touch), and you get to share that excitement.


 
that very few people with a real love of or talent for music feel the need to be such a rude, aggressive poseur

Hear that, exholt?

If I wanted to be attractive to every attractive woman I met, I’d drive myself crazy.

I think you exaggerate what attractive women want in an attractive men.  IME, a smile, and light interest in them can overcome any misgivings they might have about what you’re wearing.

As for hating cats, Mother Avenger was scratched in the eyes by a cat when she was a very young girl, and even the presence of a kitten in the same room with her was enough to cause her much discomfort.

I could see how someone who had a bad experience with a ‘domesticated’ pet, especially during childhood, wouldn’t want to be around them, but that would be a very rare case, as with MA’s experience.

Comment #229: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  09/06  at  12:38 PM

I’m not arguing their terms. I’ve decided that potential people are persons, but the person carrying them has the right to their bodies and get to control their act of reproduction by carrying to term or aborting.

Listen Sweetie, and I will try to explain this in a way that even you can understand.  I don’t care about your opinion.  But you can’t abort objects; you can only abort processes.  That’s the definition of the term.  Fetuses and embryos aren’t aborted, and people aren’t aborted.  It’s the process of making a person, the pregnancy, that is aborted.  It doesn’t matter if you believe an embryo is a person or not; it’s still the incorrect usage of that term.  Think about it in other contexts.  Do you abort a mission or do you abort the spaceship?  Do abort the attempt to load a program, or do you abort the program itself?  I’m not arguing with your personhood views; I’m arguing with your incorrect usage of that term.  And if you didn’t have your head shoved so far up your moralistic ass, maybe you wouldn’t have missed my point so hilariously.  You really fail at reading comprehension because I wasn’t even discussing your actual views.  Stop thinking you’re so important that it’s all about trying to change your opinion.

Comment #230: bananacat  on  09/06  at  12:46 PM

RT, I know exactly what you mean and I agree 100%.  I think arguing the morality of abortion is easier when you just grant that an embryo is a life.  It clearly is a life/alive, so what?  That doesn’t change a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy.

Again, reading comprehension FAIL.  It doesn’t matter if the embryo is a life.  You don’t abort things, even if those things are alive.  You abort processes.  You can’t abort an embryo, living or not, because you can only abort a pregnancy.

Comment #231: bananacat  on  09/06  at  12:47 PM

I also won’t go on second or third dates with men who don’t pay.

Well send all those men over my way.  I hate it when men insist on paying and “won’t let” a woman pay.  If they insist on strict gender roles in one area, they probably insist on them in other areas.  No amount of date-paying can make up for the extra domestic work that I would inevitably have to do if I lived with this man.

At the very least, chances are high that if he pays, he’ll feel that I owe him in some other.  He probably won’t rape me because most men actually aren’t rapists, but he’ll still probably feel that I personally, or women in general, owe him something for it.

Comment #232: bananacat  on  09/06  at  12:54 PM

<blockquote>Yeah, that’s a better word. But I can’t help thinking of all the hardworking people I know, and the fact that the ones who I think dress scruffily at work and at parties are the ones going out to concerts and shows and clubs all the time, while the ones who dress professionally are generally the ones hanging out at home with their significant other when they’re not at work.
Comment #203: geogami on 09/06 at 08:02 AM<?blockquote>
Dressing professionally <> dressing well.  I have professional outfits that are blah and casual outfits that are killer.

“Scruffy” may be necessary when you’re stacking boxes, but then a lot of people in the box-stacking and other physical work jobs at my place of employment look pretty fly on-the-job.  Others just wear scrubs or whatever fits.  One group would fit in at a concert or restaurant, the other group would look silly.  Guess which?

Well-fitting to me doesn’t mean tailored, though knowing how to run a sewing machine can help.  It means you don’t buy stuff that doesn’t fit even if the number matches the number you think your size is.  You know what kinds of clothing work for your body and what kinds don’t. 

Is it really so hard to understand that people can dress well on a budget?  It just means you pay attention to what you’re buying.  I get my best casual clothes at a middle/low budget store at the middle/low budget mall where most of the people shopping there make less money than I do.  And I’m not rich.  The right sale at Macy’s will get you clothing cheaper than Wal*Mart.

And that doesn’t even include the secondhand stores.

It’s an interest, like music or art or literature.  If you’re not into it then you might make mistakes like thinking that expensive or formal or professional clothing must be good, just like people think classical music must be good.

Yes, there’s cheap clothing that really sucks, and some expensive clothing is really good.  Sometimes expensive clothing and shoes are well worth the cost because you can wear it a lot more before it falls apart. 

You learn these things from observation and experience.  If you’re not interested then that’s something you and I don’t share and I don’t think I’m wrong to make it a dealbreaker no matter how much you want to make it a class thing.  It really isn’t.  People of all classes have all different interests in clothing, fashion and style.

Comment #233: oldfeminist  on  09/06  at  01:11 PM

The problem with Sady’s post was that she tried to dismiss all criticism of the Gizmodo article as “How dare she have an opinion?”, when a non-insignificant amount of the criticism was actually “How dare she try to shame someone for having an interest she doesn’t?”

As I said a few days back on Twitter, when does the vileness of the attacks on someone excuse them for trying to shame someone else?

Comment #234: Prodigal  on  09/06  at  01:30 PM

Bananacat, I’m fully aware that pregnancies are aborted and that precise language is important. However, most people having these conversations don’t care that you can “only” abort processes because it doesn’t address their central claim that the gestating life was killed.  I find it much more productive to skip the boring and pedantic step where the only thing I’m telling a person is that I know the meaning of words better than they do, and head straight into “yes, you’re killing a potential life, and that’s okay for a whole bunch of other reasons.”

Simone, I’m with you on men paying for first dates, though it’s more red flag territory than a dealbreaker for me.  It only happened one time, and it’s because my friend’s douchebag boyfriend told their friend who asked me out that I’m a ball-busting feminist and I’d scream at him if he tried to pay.  I’d decided in the first 5 minutes that there wouldn’t be a second date (super great guy, absolutely no spark) so I didn’t necessarily care about paying, but I was definitely put off by it.  A few months later, we had a conversation where I told him that it was off-putting, and he was so mortified by it that he begged for a do-over.  Still didn’t have a spark, but we were good friends at the time so it worked out fine.

Interestingly enough, one of the things cited by the parents of a high school friend who were both hippies in the ‘60s was how one of the greatest things the hippies did for subsequent generations was to eliminate dress codes and relax social norms on how one dresses in public.

My theory is that clothes became cheaper to produce in the 70s/80s.  I have absolutely no evidence to back that up, but it feels right.

 

Comment #235: stubbles  on  09/06  at  01:34 PM

t-ster @ 193:

ks: it was some strange incoherent argument about how light cones prove that everything that ever will exist already did exist in the past, so a fetus is really the actual human it would be in the future, except if you abort it, in which case you have ripped the fabric of space time in addition to being a babykiller. Or something. Anyways, it was a deal breaker. I didn’t know what light cones were at the time, but I do now—and that argument seems extra silly.

That is really… interesting?  I guess?  Was this person high or something when that argument came up?  Because that is really convoluted.

Comment #236: ks  on  09/06  at  01:40 PM

The right sale at Macy’s will get you clothing cheaper than Wal*Mart.

Or, as in my noble spouses’ own observations, that the low-end panties for sale at Victoria’s Secret lasted longer than the panties sold at Wal*Mart, so they’re actually a better value even though they cost more than the Wally World stuff.

And that doesn’t even include the secondhand stores.

Word.  I once outfitted myself for my grandmothers’ memorial service at a thrift store for 13$.  The high-end non-profit thrift stores often have real bargains, but you have to do a bit of hunting around to find which one is the best one in your area for what you’re looking for.  I had a teacher whose emigre German mother in Detroit would shop the thrift stores for stuff to send back to her relatives in East Germany, and he said it wasn’t uncommon for her at the end of his visits to open a closet full of nice jackets and other clothing, and asking him if there was a leather one there he’d like to take home with him.

Yes, there’s cheap clothing that really sucks, and some expensive clothing is really good.  Sometimes expensive clothing and shoes are well worth the cost because you can wear it a lot more before it falls apart.

And, with the Internet, one can research brands and see what people have to say about their purchases, clothing or otherwise.

It also helps to understand how clothing is put together and how it looks when it’s worn.  I found one excellent brand of clothing because the button-down, long-sleeve shirts are a modification of the standard design that one finds for sale in J.C. Penney, etc..

The modified design makes for a shirt that not only looks good, it’s comfortable as well, because the designer had a knowledge of the human male torso that took both factors into account when making this modified design.

Comment #237: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  09/06  at  01:53 PM

This was our first and last date.

Comment #238: SomeGuy  on  09/06  at  02:35 PM

The eagerness to read me with the least amount of generosity possible shows that the idea that women have an absolute right to find something—-in this case, a slovenly attitude towards appearance and clothes—-unattractive still gives people the chills

I really don’t think that’s the case. I think people are saying that women don’t have an absolute right to announce that two separate things are correlated and then have people ignore evidence to the contrary. What people are objecting to is not your dislike of scruffiness and lazing about, its your insistence that people who dress scruffy also don’t go out and do things. Even if you loved both those facts people would be objecting. If you said “I love scruffy people because I know they’ll always want to relax at home with me instead of going out to dinner” you’d get the same objections.

Comment #239: Terra  on  09/06  at  02:37 PM

As I said a few days back on Twitter, when does the vileness of the attacks on someone excuse them for trying to shame someone else?
Comment #240: Prodigal on 09/06 at 01:30 PM

This is the new MRA/anti-feminist thing, when someone who doesn’t like what you do is accused of “shaming” you.  Sometimes you should be ashamed.  Shaming someone for something shameful is appropriate.

But in this case, you can be proud of being a gaming pro, if that’s what you are.  The point is that that doesn’t mean everyone will want to date you no matter how praiseworthy your achievement, how smart you are, how much money you make, what your IQ or SATs are. 

Stating that preference not to date you because you have a hobby you follow intensely, without apology or weasel words about how you’re “probably wonderful just not for me,” is perfectly legitimate.  Get over it already.

Comment #240: oldfeminist  on  09/06  at  02:40 PM

Listen Sweetie, and I will try to explain this in a way that even you can understand.  I don’t care about your opinion.  But you can’t abort objects; you can only abort processes.  That’s the definition of the term.  Fetuses and embryos aren’t aborted, and people aren’t aborted.  It’s the process of making a person, the pregnancy, that is aborted.  It doesn’t matter if you believe an embryo is a person or not; it’s still the incorrect usage of that term.  Think about it in other contexts.  Do you abort a mission or do you abort the spaceship?  Do abort the attempt to load a program, or do you abort the program itself?  I’m not arguing with your personhood views; I’m arguing with your incorrect usage of that term.  And if you didn’t have your head shoved so far up your moralistic ass, maybe you wouldn’t have missed my point so hilariously.  You really fail at reading comprehension because I wasn’t even discussing your actual views.

‘Cause words only mean one thing. I thought you were doing the “it’s not life” gambit, which is the prevalent pro-choice tactic as I am aware.

How about I drop the euphemism “abortion” and say killing and/or murder and you stick to your definition of the word? We can all be happy.

Stop thinking you’re so important that it’s all about trying to change your opinion

Maybe you should be explicit about not challenging me. I’m not a mind reader.

Comment #241: R.T.  on  09/06  at  02:43 PM

“I also feel a beard is making a mockery out of how much shaving women are still expected to do.”

LOL.

Letting down women again. I am so ashamed.

Comment #242: TikiHead  on  09/06  at  02:45 PM

Jeezus Chrizzy, the burning sanctimony in comments re: beards. Time to grow mine even bigger. Extra dangling, germ-filled, crumb-catching mockery for all!

Comment #243: TikiHead  on  09/06  at  02:52 PM

‘Cause words only mean one thing. I thought you were doing the “it’s not life” gambit, which is the prevalent pro-choice tactic as I am aware.

How about I drop the euphemism “abortion” and say killing and/or murder and you stick to your definition of the word? We can all be happy.

At first I felt bad about the reception R.T. routinely receives here.  Lately though, I become a little more convinced every day that R.T. is actually someone’s perverse idea of a joke.

Comment #244: themmases  on  09/06  at  03:02 PM

ks: I think they were just intent on proving that their point-of-view was grounded in logic when it wasn’t. People get themselves tied into some strange, convoluted arguments when they become so vehement about irrational views.

Comment #245: t-ster  on  09/06  at  03:26 PM

“This is the new MRA/anti-feminist thing, when someone who doesn’t like what you do is accused of “shaming” you. ”

Saying that someone is a liar for not mentioning oneof their hobbies in a dating profile and posting their name for the entire world to see is an attempt to shame them. If the genders had been reversed, would you make the same attempts to minimise what Alyssa Bereznak did?

Comment #246: Prodigal  on  09/06  at  03:37 PM

Comment #250: themmases

I’d say it’s the conflict between me being non-NT, and most people being so, not like I can connect with other non-NT people anyway due to my nature. Hence I can’t be real, I must be a joke, blah blah whatever. People can’t abide huge differences in ways of cognition, they aren’t wired for it.

Comment #247: R.T.  on  09/06  at  03:38 PM

@#253: R.T.

Your assumption that I am neurotypical and my mind is just blown by your snowflake cognition is cute, but I think what you meant to say was:

People can’t abide huge differences in ways of cognition flaming assholes, they aren’t wired for it.

Look, I brought us back on-topic!

Comment #248: themmases  on  09/06  at  03:46 PM

Prodigal, wondering what kind of world you live in where, if someone tells you you’re doing something wrong, it is always with the intent to SHAME YOU first.

Comment #249: oldfeminist  on  09/06  at  03:46 PM

Are they telling me that to my face, or are they posting it to a blog with an international readership that had nothing to do with what either I or they did until they posted about it there, and would your opinion on what they did be affected by what gender they belong to?

Comment #250: Prodigal  on  09/06  at  03:54 PM

I think R.T. is sincere, but just gets frustrated at times.  I would have been frustrated by the whole side-issue on what abort means, too.  Doesn’t mean that anyone has to engage with him (I believe R.T. to be a him based on other convos. on other blogs) but it is a bit much to accuse someone of being not real when he is just trying to be himself.

Comment #251: Ismone  on  09/06  at  04:04 PM

Sometimes people don’t like you and think poorly of you because you happen to like Magic.

And you know, sometime’s people don’t like you and think poorly of you because you go on Gizmodo and write posts about what weirdy-o weird weird weirdos you think people who like Magic are.

Sorry that this thing isn’t whatever other thing Amanda / Sady Doyle /whoever wants it to be.

Comment #252: Dan  on  09/06  at  04:08 PM

And that is why nobody said anything about forcing you to date scruffsters. Also I would like to note that “sandals-and-stoned” is different from, “wears unflattering t-shirts,” which is more where you kicked off your objection. Fuck, if you had said your dealbreakers were “lazy antisocial slackasses who dress like shit” (which, am I not correct, IS your actual dealbreaker?) there would have been no comment whatsoever.

This, even more so.  The more effort someone puts into their appearance, the less likely they are to being for going out or doing something fun.  That Amanda claimed the opposite correlation is mind-boggling.

Comment #253: Brian  on  09/06  at  04:12 PM

I also feel a beard is making a mockery out of how much shaving women are still expected to do.

And if women just decided to quit shaving, or quit wearing ridiculous shoes, or quit wearing skirts, or quit wearing make-up or quit dying their hair, would men all turn gay?

For a while, the Chinese government pretty much enforced the “Mao suit” unisex look, high-necked, always pants, flat shoes, no make-up, and the Chinese still made so many new Chinese that the government had to put a one-child per woman policy into effect.

Comment #254: Dana  on  09/06  at  04:14 PM

Like I’m not saying nobody ever gets to judge Magic players.

I’m just saying that people who write for Gizmodo don’t get to judge magic players.

The same way you don’t get to judge people who dress up in chipmunk suits to fuck, if you’re, say… a cannibal.

Comment #255: Dan  on  09/06  at  04:16 PM

And if women just decided to quit shaving, or quit wearing ridiculous shoes, or quit wearing skirts, or quit wearing make-up or quit dying their hair, would men all turn gay?

No, they’d all turn into Nice Guys (TM) who would sit around lamenting that it’s socially acceptable for women to “let themselves go” and they just can’t get the sex with hawt supermodels that they’re entitled to because those women are rarer and only go for jerks, so the poor sad sacks are stuck with women who aren’t socially acceptable.

Comment #256: bananacat  on  09/06  at  04:23 PM

I would have been frustrated by the whole side-issue on what abort means, too.

If you’ve spend any time reading this blog, you know that I’m as hardcore descriptivist as they come.  But this isn’t some trivial issue.  Conservatives have intentionally changed the term to make an emotional appeal.  And I want to change it back to a meaning that is more neutral and not intended to provoke an emotional response and shut down other thought.

Conservatives can define terms, but I can still object to it.  I also don’t like them using “fetus” when they mean “embryo”.

This isn’t some trivial thread derail.

Comment #257: bananacat  on  09/06  at  04:26 PM

I feel that as a non-scruffy layabout (in fact, I used to have on facebook under my about me “Designer by day, good for nothing layabout by night”), I had to speak up. In fact, I share Amanda’s dealbreaker about slovenly dress on guys. I like to wear real clothes, I like to wear makeup and I like to get interesting haircuts/colors that generally require some actual work to maintain. I expect a similar degree of interest in appearance in my partner (at the very least so that he’s not constantly irritated that I take longer than 5 minutes to get ready in the morning).

However, another dealbreaker of mine is an inability to appreciate my style of relaxation. My mother and 2 of my best friends are like Amanda: constantly busy, long to-do lists and full social calendars, and loving every single second of it. Which, sure, I get it. I, however, tend to get very irritable and stressed if I don’t get at least an hour or so a night (and maybe half a day or more if possible on the weekend) where I don’t have to do ANYTHING but sit on the couch, hang out, and watch TV with the cat. It’s how I decompress, and I’ve accepted that it’s weird and most people don’t get it. Lucky for me, my partner is exactly the same way, so we spent a lovely labor day weekend finally getting around to watching the entirety of BSG on netflix. We did manage to get dressed up (like, actually dressed up in dressy clothes) at one point and go for an anniversary dinner out on the town, after which we went home and changed back into sweatpants to enjoy our food comas.

So, slovenly does not = layabout. Layabouts like nice clothes too, and we don’t always need a ton of convincing to don them. Clothes are fun for their own sake, although if I do bother to get dressed and everything, I’ll be pretty bummed if whatever I end up doing turns out to be dumb or boring or not worth it.

Comment #258: akzidenzgrotesk  on  09/06  at  04:33 PM

Nitpick time: Amanda means compatibility in BANDS or commercial musical genres, if you want to be precise. But music? Not unless you actually play an instrument or sing on pitch or know a little bit about the technicalities of music theory or production can you really claim that word. Amanda’s scarcely shown any knowledge of, or even interest in, such things. (A must on my personal compatibility checklist). It’s of a piece with her poor cultural education (which accounts also for her adolescent and 19th-century whiggish attitude toward “religion”).

Oh, I remembered another dealbreaker! Assholes with an authenticity bug up their butt who don’t want someone in “their” club because they don’t conform to arbitrary rules that they’ve invented to emphasize their personal specialness. Those kinds of people can fuck off.

Comment #259: grolby  on  09/06  at  04:34 PM

Oh, I remembered another dealbreaker! Assholes with an authenticity bug up their butt who don’t want someone in “their” club because they don’t conform to arbitrary rules that they’ve invented to emphasize their personal specialness.

Actually, that’s one of mine, as well. Specifically it is the “You don’t already know X? You suck” aspect of it. I like people who like to learn about new things and teach new things. If it is awesome, and I don’t already know it, I want you to be all excited about a chance to introduce me to it. The casual snubbing of “you’re not already in the cool club”?  Total turnoff for me.

Comment #260: LC  on  09/06  at  05:11 PM

How about grammar snobs?  I say this, because even if you aren’t reading this far down the thread, I still have to complain about your pretty frequent misuse of quotation marks.  Quotation marks, at least in the United States, are supposed to be outside the punctuation following the quoted material.  I don’t think this applies to semi-colons, but I could be wrong.  So, it should be ““germ farm face pube crumb catchers.” Not “germ farm face pube crumb catchers”.

This is not the rule in England, where the punctuation comes after the quotation marks.  For a snobby-grammar good time and some good tips, I suggest “Eats, Shoots & Leaves,” which was a thoughtful gift to me from someone once upon a time and a quick, enjoyable read.  Much more fun than Strunk and White, which I think I bought, like, in 1980, back when children had to learn cursive writing in school, before electricity and movable type and, I even think, fire.

Comment #261: Iam138  on  09/06  at  05:36 PM

Amanda,

I agree that everybody is sntitled to their preferences and women should not be shamed for exercising or expressing them. I also agree that many of the responses to Alyssa Bereznak’s posts were sexist and entirely overboard.  That said, I think you, and Sady, are mischaracterizing what some of the upset was at her post. It’s not merely that Ms. Berenzak said she did not wish to date a gamer. It’s the notion, implied by the last paragraph of her post, that no “normal” person would want to date the world champion of magic the gathering. Not only that, she had the poor judgment to post this notion on, of all things, a tech blog. Thus, while the name calling and the releasing of unflattering photos is an overboard reaction, accusing her of snobbery seems entirely accurate.

Comment #262: Jon S  on  09/06  at  05:40 PM

Along the lines of the “shallow” thing, I’m wondering how many of us have met someone who seems like they should be just perfect in musical taste, politics, pet ownership, religion, compatibility, etc., but the deal breaker is that you’re just not turned on by them. Maybe it boils down to physical attraction or maybe it’s something even harder to put your finger on, but there’s just no spark.  I think in those cases, many of us start looking for a deal breaker that’s more defensible than something like physical appearance, or even attempt to make ourselves the deal breaker for the other person to avoid being shallow and insensitive.

Comment #263: Kyartist  on  09/06  at  06:01 PM

And lest it seem that I am creating a straw man, here are the quotes where I think the Gizmoto article does imply that geeks are somehow inferior or bad.

“I was lured on a date thinking I’d met a normal finance guy, only to realise he was a champion dweeb in hedge funder’s clothing.”

He is actually a partner at a hedge fund. He wasn’t pretending. That’s what this guy does. He led with his job instead of his hobby.

“I later found out that he infiltrated his way into OKCupid dates with at least two other people I sort of know, including one of my co-workers.”

Infiltrated? Is she implying that he is somehow stalking her and dating her friends? Or is he just by coincidence going on Ok Cupid dates with people she knows. If she has reason to believe the former, she buried her lead, because that would be the biggest horror story. If the latter, then she is implying that people who play magic should know they aren’t good enough to date her friends.

“You’ll think you’ve found a normal bearded guy with a job, only to end up sharing goat cheese with a world champion of nerds.”

Again, he is a normal bearded guy with a job, who also happens to be a world champion at a nerdy hobby.

“But if everyone stopped lying in their profiles, maybe there also wouldn’t be quite as many OKCupid horror stories to tell.”

He didn’t lie, he omitted. Also, horror story implies this was objectively a terrible date. If he were really into hockey and she hated it, it wouldn’t be a horror story simply because he mentioned something, in passing, on a date, that turned out to be a deal breaker. For instance, a friend of mine recently went on a date with a woman who does not believe in evolution. This was a deal breaker, but not a horror story. He just didn’t call her.

“Also, for all you world famous nerds out there: Don’t go after two Gawker Media employees and not expect to have a post written about you. “

Ok, is it that irrational to believe that a writer for GIZMODO, which is a pretty geeky blog, might not hate geeks? Turns out not a safe assumption, but not crazy.

Comment #264: Jon S  on  09/06  at  06:04 PM

@269:  I think physical attractiveness is kind of a baseline thing for even getting to the date stage, and not everyone has the same preferences.  For me a dealbreaker is something that I didn’t know about you before agreeing to a date but that means that it would be pretty much impossible to have a long term relationship with you.  I’ve met plenty of people whom I am attracted enough to for, say, a one night stand, but whom I would NOT want to start a serious relationship with, because their politics are odious or they listen to country music.

Comment #265: progrocker  on  09/06  at  06:17 PM

In my case, owning a cat turned out to be a deal maker - or, it was at least part of the equation.  The cat liked my new girlfriend, and I had to go to England for three weeks, something that was set in motion before I met her, so I asked her if she might apartment sit while I gone, and take care of the cat, and she pretty much never moved out after that.  We’ve been together 23 years.

Comment #266: Kyartist  on  09/06  at  06:17 PM

#267: If a grammar rule is different in the US and UK, it might as well not exist in an international medium such as the Internet. I tend towards proper grammar, but frequently mix and match American and UK spellings, just because.

I…don’t notice clothes. I have no problem dressing up, but I really don’t notice when other people do and unless told directly won’t think of it. I once wore my HELLBLAZER John Constantine T-shirt to a friend’s church, for example, and thought nothing of it until much later. Basically, for me to even notice something isn’t appropriate it would need to be a thong, furry costume, or superhero outfit. For job interviews I basically have set aside a bunch of collared shirts and microfiber slacks other people tell me looks nice. Because to me, a tux or suit and Iron Maiden concert T are interchangeable. I think it might be something like face-blindness.

I have the same thing with cars, unless they look like Batmobiles or something. Can’t tell make, model, or even colour the second it’s gone. I would be the worst eyewitness ever: “Yeah…he was wearing…um…something, I guess. He wasn’t naked. And he left in a car…white, or maybe black.”

Comment #267: Mark Temporis  on  09/06  at  06:22 PM

Your assumption that I am neurotypical and my mind is just blown by your snowflake cognition is cute, but I think what you meant to say was:

Not what I was doing, besides I do believe my problem with people is mutual incompatibility due to different ways of thinking, not a statement of superiority or special “snowflake” status, just of difference.

And, like I said, I can’t connect with non-NT people either, everyone’s included.

Comment #268: R.T.  on  09/06  at  06:25 PM

@271, Even outside of blind dates, I think you sometimes get to the date stage when you’re not completely sure about the physical attraction.  There may be some value in opening yourself up to the possibility that you might begin to find someone more attractive physically once you get to know them better personally, but the risk you take is that it just won’t happen. I think that’s part of the reason that dating can be so aggravating.

Also, it depends on what sort of country music you’re talking about.  Jimmy Rodgers or Kenny Chesney, for example.  World of difference.  Most of what they play on the commercial country stations is crap, but there’s a world of great country music out there.

Comment #269: Kyartist  on  09/06  at  06:28 PM

I don’t know, bananacat, I see it as semantics, and a little mean-spirited.  Not your first post so much, but the “sweetie” bit.  He is allowed to not care about the grammar.

Not everyone is precise as you, particularly not in blog comments.  And while I would agree with you that the whole embryo/fetus/baby thing matters *a ton* not so much whether it is the pregnancy that is aborted or not.  Because if the pregnancy is aborted, the embryo/fetus is still removed, so I don’t think it really gives the prolifers any edge.

Comment #270: Ismone  on  09/06  at  06:35 PM

I suggest “Eats, Shoots & Leaves,” which was a thoughtful gift to me from someone once upon a time and a quick, enjoyable read.  Much more fun than Strunk and White, which I think I bought, like, in 1980, back when children had to learn cursive writing in school, before electricity and movable type and, I even think, fire.

I have Eats, Shoots & Leaves, which I enjoyed, because even Ms Truss had to admit that the use of punctuation changes over time and space and so getting mad about it is often ridiculous. Anyone who thinks Strunk & White has any good advice for writers, though? DEALBREAKER!!!  *grin*

Comment #271: LC  on  09/06  at  06:53 PM

@275 - The whole “delayed attraction” thing is one of those weird imponderables. I’ve had it happen to me in the past, and I’ve been the beneficiary as well.  A woman of mild acquaintance once commented she was surprised I seemed hotter now than when she met me 3 months ago and a long-time friend of mine jumped in with, “I TOLD YOU! It sneaks up on you. I wasn’t making that up!”.

I just don’t think you can predict that and it is probably a case where it is slightly out of your comfort zone, or “nothing wrong, but just not right” that then shifts. Someone who really does *nothing* for you, or actively twigs a button you dislike seems an unlikely one to shift.

Comment #272: LC  on  09/06  at  07:00 PM

Dana, you forget that whatever clothes the government proscribed for the Chinese to wear, they still got to take them off at night     wink

Comment #273: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  09/06  at  07:05 PM

@#276: Ismone:
And this is…  What, R.T.‘s idiosyncratic sense of grammar at work?:

  ‘Cause words only mean one thing. I thought you were doing the “it’s not life” gambit, which is the prevalent pro-choice tactic as I am aware.

  How about I drop the euphemism “abortion” and say killing and/or murder and you stick to your definition of the word? We can all be happy.

R.T. has repeatedly been advised that his “contributions” to most threads are at best inappropriate.  His statement above is deliberately inflammatory, and his contention that he is just “incompatible” with others because of his “different ways of thinking,”—rather than because of a repeated failure to quit being a dick even when handed a damn flowchart on how to do so—is offensive in itself.  Even if it were somehow beyond the pale to call someone a troll on the internet (a rule that, I must confess, is new to me), I have to imagine in R.T.‘s obviously special case, an exception can be made.

Comment #274: themmases  on  09/06  at  07:31 PM

I don’t understand how people can be upset by dealbreakers.  It makes no sense to me.

If there’s one thing I don’t want, it’s a partner who really wanted someone else.  A partner with a bad issue about something that is me.  Because, sooner or later that partner is going to want to change that. It’s just how humans are.  And if it’s something that’s important to me, I probably don’t want to change. And being in a relationship with someone who’s working on a “remake” for you is just no fun.  Don’t go there. 

If a prospective partners is weirded out that I’m bi, that I have a complete collection if Zappa albums, or that I insist on being an equal parent and that my partner is equally responsible for providing for the household financially, or whatever it is, I’d much rather hear it right away.

Comment #275: lpfischer  on  09/06  at  08:11 PM

Comment #281: themmases

I’ve explained that murder and killing lie within my morals. I’ve decided that I have the right to ending the life of autonomous, thinking, feeling people though I have conditions.. I’ve explained that a person ending a pregnancy any reason at any time has their right to end something which I assign less moral or ethical value than the person ending a pregnancy. A form of human life dies in the end if all goes well, why not say killing or murder, why not suggest people stick with the words they’re comfortable with?

Comment #276: R.T.  on  09/06  at  08:55 PM

My dealbreakers (for the ladies): bald crotches, long hair (longer than a few inches), word policing, woo/religion, republicanism/libertarianism, veganism, easily-offended, extremely introverted, and people who only like to argue/debate in the interest of winning instead of exploring an idea.

The list would be a lot longer if I were looking for anything serious. Sometimes I lament my pickiness but, I’ve enjoyed my sex life a lot more since I’ve started being pickier about it.

I feel kind of bad about the short hair thing… but since high school I’ve never met a woman in person who had long hair that I was able to be attracted to. And I recently finally admitted to myself that it’s OK to be shallow about dating. It doesn’t do me or her any fucking good to try and be into someone I’m just not attracted to.

Comment #277: artdyke  on  09/06  at  09:02 PM

I wonder how much the “nice clothing = physical attraction” thing is a generational quirk.  I think the younger generations, perhaps because of the increasing rarity of athletic body types, look far more to how the wearer fills out the clothing than the clothing itself.

Comment #278: John Joel Glanton  on  09/06  at  09:13 PM

The Dark Avenger wrote:

Dana, you forget that whatever clothes the government proscribed for the Chinese to wear, they still got to take them off at night

Somehow I’m having a hard time picturing the Chinese ladies of the Cultural Revolution dropping their Mao suits and standing there in their Vicky’s Secret thongs and Christian Louboutin f*** me heels.

Comment #279: Dana  on  09/06  at  09:28 PM

Somehow I’m having a hard time picturing the Chinese ladies of the Cultural Revolution dropping their Mao suits and standing there in their Vicky’s Secret thongs and Christian Louboutin f*** me heels.

It’s an ancient Chinese secret, Dana, and certainly not to be explained to limited white devils such as yourself.  :-0

Comment #280: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  09/07  at  12:36 AM

Besides, who the hell needs f*ck me heels?

Comment #281: helen w. h.  on  09/07  at  10:44 AM

Except to align vastly varied heights, of course.

Comment #282: helen w. h.  on  09/07  at  10:45 AM

That’s why I used to wear ‘em with my ex - she was 5’11”.

Comment #283: LC  on  09/07  at  11:16 AM

Fuck me, those are some heels.

Comment #284: junk science  on  09/07  at  12:57 PM

My problem with the Gizmodo piece was that the author described an evening with this guy who apparently exhibited some creepy behaviors that she didn’t care for, and what he did for fun/for a living, which she also didn’t care for. However, instead of keeping them separate, she seemed to lump them together, as though playing Magic were an indicator of inherent creepiness.
Of course she should be free never to contact him again, but I reject the idea that separating creep factor from geek factor requires that she “lay sadly under men [she finds] unattractive.” She’s free to have dealbreakers, and free to have Magic playing as one of them. But sweeping geekery under the creepery umbrella was where she went wrong with me.

Comment #285: CologneCerrone  on  09/07  at  03:42 PM

@ CologneCerrone - What creepy behaviors? The Jeffrey Dahmer play? She didn’t seem to indicate she found it creepy at the time. Then she said he “infiltrated” is way into OKCupid dates with people she knows. Is she saying this is deliberate? Because that’s stalkerish. Of course, she didn’t say that, possibly because saying so would be libel.  Sounds like, by coincidence, he went on dates with people she knew. Small world. That’s not creepy.

Comment #286: Jon S  on  09/07  at  04:15 PM

Like others on this list, I have a series of dealbreakers, many of which stem from experience.  Is it petty to never spend any time with a man who uses the word ‘whilst’ when ‘while’ would do fine?  Yes it is, but holy hell is that word a red flag for ‘pseudo-intellectual douchery ahead!’  And quite frankly, I’ve served my time on that one.  Most of my friends are video gamers or scientists, which means that even people who know me well make horrible assumptions about what I’m looking for in a partner (hint: gaming and/or PhDs not required or even encouraged.) 

For online dating, the problem is that you’re stuck with words, and therefore don’t get to use things like the opinions of your friends or that feeling people call chemistry to help you decide if you should give that person a chance.  Plus many of us are very bad at using words, especially for self-description purposes.  So then you have a guy or gal saying ‘I’m such a geek!’ and maybe they mean they enjoyed Firefly when it was on, maybe they attend yearly Star Trek conventions, maybe they build model rockets on their spare time, or maybe they just enjoyed school slightly more than most of their friends did, or maybe they spend every weekend in full costume, LARPing at a house an even bigger geek purchased specifically for that purpose.  You don’t know what they meant until you see them. 

So we all have giant lists of what we do/don’t want, but how we phrase them might not be perfectly clear to people who have different experiences than we do.  Then we turn to the internet to meet new people and shock of shocks, it all goes to hell except for when it works out fine.  Like just now, where Amanda, a professional writer, explains that she doesn’t like poor dressers and now we have a hundred posts on people trying to suss out exactly where the line is on that one, and if it’s appropriate.  And we’ll never finish because there is no one line, it’s just something she made up for her.  It can never be explained clearly enough that everyone will understand what she meant, much less agree.

Comment #287: Kyso K  on  09/08  at  04:01 AM

No, Kyso, we have a hundred posts trying to figure out why Amanda corrolates poor dressing to not wanting to go out and do stuff (ony later changed to shiftless stoners) when many of us have the reverse experience or have observed no connection between the two whatsoever.
Nobody here cares if Amanda or anyone else wont date anyone who doesn’t dress snappily.  That wasn’t the discussion.

Comment #288: helen w. h.  on  09/08  at  10:12 AM

I believe Amanda correlates not dressing up with not going out to places where you dress up to go out.

Comment #289: oldfeminist  on  09/08  at  12:58 PM

@ helen, that’s clearly not what she said. She’s making the very obvious inference that people who don’t bother to dress up for a first date obviously don’t bother to go out and do things that require putting on a decent pair of clothes.  Seems like a totally reasonable inference, and I agree with her assessment, and as a hetero guy, have been turned off when a girl showed up on a date with unkempt hair, a sweatshirt, ratty jeans and sneakers. Not what I am into. (I actually think this particular shortfall is way less common among women. Even women who barely ever leave the house know to put on something nice for a date).

Comment #290: Jon S  on  09/08  at  01:55 PM

Amanda, I’m a music major - i.e. music is my career, therefore it’s something I want/need to discuss quite regularly with anyone with whom I’m in a close relationship - and people still act like I’m “shallow” because bad taste in music/lack of knowledge about music is one of my biggest dealbreakers. You can’t win with these people.

Comment #291: Erda  on  09/08  at  02:38 PM

Also for me, the big thing with music is about classical music, since that’s what I write as a composer and the concerts I attend regularly as a music student. It doesn’t have to be your favorite genre of music, but do you at least like it somewhat and know a little bit about it? I’m fine with teaching my boyfriend or girlfriend about it if s/he doesn’t know much, but the interest has to be there. If I want to go to a symphony concert and s/he acts like I suggested a pound of broken glass for dinner, then we’re clearly not compatible.

Another thing I get a lot of shit for is that I don’t want to date someone who has no interest in going to college. People seem to assume that this is about money, but for me it isn’t. It’s because I’m an academic and I don’t think I could be with someone who thinks intellectual knowledge is unimportant. The key word here is “no interest”; I could be fine with someone who can’t go to college right now because of financial issues but clearly has the interest. I just couldn’t be with someone who thinks it’s a huge waste of time.

Comment #292: Erda  on  09/08  at  02:46 PM

Sorry for the continual double posts - but the “evil” sense of humor is a thing with me, too. It tends to be more of a problem in women, I’ve noticed, particularly the sort of awesome feminist women who I tend to like and who tend to like me. Some of them just really are not cool with any sort of offensive humor, or even dark humor sometimes. And while I can perfectly understand where they’re coming from (certainly, there are plenty of jokes I find just offensive and not at all amusing), I just wouldn’t feel comfortable tip-toeing around that for very long. I’m not going to deal with shaming because I like Family Guy and South Park.

Comment #293: Erda  on  09/08  at  02:51 PM

Another thing I get a lot of shit for is that I don’t want to date someone who has no interest in going to college. People seem to assume that this is about money, but for me it isn’t. It’s because I’m an academic and I don’t think I could be with someone who thinks intellectual knowledge is unimportant. The key word here is “no interest”; I could be fine with someone who can’t go to college right now because of financial issues but clearly has the interest. I just couldn’t be with someone who thinks it’s a huge waste of time.

From your description here, it seems the underlying dealbreaker is really anti-intellectualism….especially the form which exhibits contempt for intellectuals and higher education. 

Unfortunately, this not only inhabits those who didn’t go to college because they have no interest/feel it is a waste of time, but also many who attended and even graduated from college.  However, they were only interested in the degree as a credential and saw the educational requirements as obstacles to be avoided/minimized whenever possible instead of potential learning opportunities.  IME and from comparing notes with high school classmates/colleagues….a majority of college students/graduates have this very anti-intellectual attitude….including those at the most elite institutions. 

Did you find that to be the case in your experiences and if so, did it feel demoralizing that this mentality was prevalent even among some, if not most college students?

Comment #294: exholt  on  09/09  at  04:24 AM

IME and from comparing notes with high school classmates/colleagues….a majority of college students/graduates have this very anti-intellectual attitude….including those at the most elite institutions. 

Because we all know that anecdotes = strong data, right, exholt?

FWIW, I was talking to a fellow alumni of the Harvard of the Midwest, and she told me that the U was harder to get into than before, a 15% acceptance rate, you have to have good grades, good scores, and be an interesting person as well.(Which means, I guess, you can’t just have an extracurricular activity, but a lifestyle that demonstrates some sort of individuality.)

Comment #295: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  09/09  at  11:10 AM

Cat Hate: I will say it, I am a cat hater. I do not like cats because I like sleep, and I can’t do it with a cat using me as a crosswalk or a lollipop, not to mention yowling outside the door because I got tired of these behaviors.  I want to be able to cook dinner without an animal underfoot. I want to be able to read a book without a poop-encrusted ass in my face. I want to get dressed in clothes that aren’t covered in fur.  Sweet animals or not, these things are sadly not often possible with cats in the house.

My boyfriend has two cats, two of the most obnoxious, spoiled cats I’ve ever met. I love him, and want to be with him, so I guess it’s not a “dealbreaker,” but if for some reason it doesn’t work out, I don’t think I’d date another guy with cats. It’s just too much annoyance and hassle. 

He also goes to a naturopath, which violates my “no woo” rule, and he has done a mediocre job of convincing me that he doesn’t buy it hook, line and sinker.  We argue about it sometimes. Why does he trust a “doctor” with a joke degree, who doesn’t believe in vaccines, who would prescribe homeopathy or any number of disproven, dangerous treatments? He’s had some bad experiences with doctors, partially caused by trouble finding one with a good bedside manner, and he blames them for his failure to research and get other opinions about a surgery he might not have needed. That’s not a good reason to choose a “doctor” that’s even more worthless and incompetent.

So yeah. If I find myself in the dating pool in the future, cats and natural medicine get you crossed off the list.

Comment #296: weenertron  on  09/09  at  11:19 AM

Unfortunately, this not only inhabits those who didn’t go to college because they have no interest/feel it is a waste of time, but also many who attended and even graduated from college.  However, they were only interested in the degree as a credential and saw the educational requirements as obstacles to be avoided/minimized whenever possible instead of potential learning opportunities.  IME and from comparing notes with high school classmates/colleagues….a majority of college students/graduates have this very anti-intellectual attitude….including those at the most elite institutions.
Did you find that to be the case in your experiences and if so, did it feel demoralizing that this mentality was prevalent even among some, if not most college students?

I’ve found it demoralizing, but I disagree with you that it’s the case with “most college students.” I’m with Dark Avenger that you’re confusing anecdotes with data. Certainly, the “I’m here to get a job more than I am to learn” attitude exists and it’s more common than it should be. I went to a magnet high school full of kids who wanted to be doctors and engineers and some of them felt they shouldn’t have to take English and history since it wasn’t “related” to their chosen field. I’m now in a music program where there are a fair number of people who think they should just be able to practice their instrument all day and not have to learn anything unrelated to music; a few think even music-related academics (i.e. music theory and history) are just time taken away from violin lessons. However, I would say both people are in the minority; way more common were the people who had so many academic areas that interested them that they had difficulty choosing or committing to one major. Maybe this has something to do with me choosing an area of study that is considered “impractical”; people don’t major in music if they’re looking for a high-powered career and lots of money. Maybe if I were majoring in business or engineering I would find the attitude you’re describing more prevalent.

In any case, I don’t see how your statement disproves the usefulness of my filter. It’s like if you told people they shouldn’t refuse to date KKK members because that won’t filter out all racists. Yes, but a member of the KKK is guaranteed to be a racist, so it still is filtering some out. Same with this; while some college students are anti-intellectuals, people who think college is a waste of time almost certainly are (your hippie “unschooling” types notwithstanding). I’m not filtering them all out, but I am filtering out a lot, so it’s still a good dealbreaker for someone like me to have.

Comment #297: Erda  on  09/09  at  11:37 AM

FWIW, I was talking to a fellow alumni of the Harvard of the Midwest, and she told me that the U was harder to get into than before, a 15% acceptance rate, you have to have good grades, good scores, and be an interesting person as well.(Which means, I guess, you can’t just have an extracurricular activity, but a lifestyle that demonstrates some sort of individuality.)

A large part of that is the competition to get into most colleges has gotten far more competitive than just 10-15 years before.  Even a local community college in my area actually had to turn away scores of students in the first time in its history because the sheer amount of applicants far outstripped the community college’s capacity. 

As for your alma mater, from what I’ve gathered from high school classmates and colleagues who attended….the student body was mostly just as credential-oriented and anti-intellectual as most mainstream colleges.

Comment #298: exholt  on  09/09  at  11:42 AM

Er, to clarify what I meant - Excluding white supremacists doesn’t mean you’ll filter out all racists, but since white supremacists are guaranteed to be racists, it’s still a good idea to filter them out if you don’t want to date racists. Likewise, excluding people who have no interest in college doesn’t mean I’ll filter out all anti-intellectuals, but there’s a very strong chance that someone who thinks college is a waste of time is someone who also thinks intellectualism is a waste of time or at least doesn’t understand it (again, notwithstanding a few hippie “unschoolers” who love learning but just think college doesn’t promote it very well). So if you’re someone like me who is a nerd and an academic and would want to date someone who shares some of those interests with you, filtering out people with no interest in going to college is still a good idea even if it doesn’t capture all of them.

Comment #299: Erda  on  09/09  at  11:49 AM

Certainly, the “I’m here to get a job more than I am to learn” attitude exists and it’s more common than it should be. I went to a magnet high school full of kids who wanted to be doctors and engineers and some of them felt they shouldn’t have to take English and history since it wasn’t “related” to their chosen field.

I also attended a magnet high school with students who were mostly interested in being doctors, engineers, ibankers, etc.  However, though they did display some anti-intellectual tendencies….it was never to the extent of whining about “distracting workloads” in their distribution requirements or worse….complaining about having to take “impractical” humanities and social science courses to fulfill their distribution requirements. 

Frankly, the prevailing anti-intellectual attitude they observed at schools ranging from big state U to the Ivy/Ivy-level schools was such that they were quite disgusted with most of their college classmates….and they were pretty pre-professionally oriented themselves. 

In any case, I don’t see how your statement disproves the usefulness of my filter.

I’m not arguing against your dealbreaker.  In fact, I wholeheartedly agree with it. 

It is just that IME, the attitudes you describe are prevalent among many college students/graduates as well so that filter may need to be expanded to filter them out as well.

Comment #300: exholt  on  09/09  at  11:55 AM

Nitpick time: Amanda means compatibility in BANDS or commercial musical genres, if you want to be precise. But music? Not unless you actually play an instrument or sing on pitch or know a little bit about the technicalities of music theory or production can you really claim that word. Amanda’s scarcely shown any knowledge of, or even interest in, such things. (A must on my personal compatibility checklist)

I’m a professional musician, too - a composer, in fact - and I agree with others that you’re being an arrogant douchecanoe. You don’t have to know tons of music theory and play an instrument to care about music and to have tastes in music. I would pass your filter but I’d have no interest in dating you because you’re full of yourself.

As for your alma mater, from what I’ve gathered from high school classmates and colleagues who attended….the student body was mostly just as credential-oriented and anti-intellectual as most mainstream colleges.

You’re really, really full of yourself if you’re going to act like a handful of second-hand anecdotes trumps actually attending the place for four years in terms of understanding what the campus climate is like.

Comment #301: Erda  on  09/09  at  11:56 AM

It is just that IME, the attitudes you describe are prevalent among many college students/graduates as well so that filter may need to be expanded to filter them out as well.

Well,duh. I don’t see where you got the impression that I wasn’t already doing some of that. Having “not interested in college” as a dealbreaker doesn’t mean I think that someone is automatically worth dating because they are in college/planning to go. If people like that express anti-intellectual attitudes, I’m not interested in them, either.

Comment #302: Erda  on  09/09  at  12:01 PM

Weenertron, cat-ownership is a red flag for me as well.  I don’t think people who like cats are capable of offering me the type of emotion and affection I need in my relationships.  I’m a dog-person.  Make of that what you will.

Comment #303: stubbles  on  09/09  at  12:11 PM

As for your alma mater, from what I’ve gathered from high school classmates and colleagues who attended….the student body was mostly just as credential-oriented and anti-intellectual as most mainstream colleges.

If you had been in my dorm the first couple of years, you’d have found a mixture of lively people(there was a sign on the water fountain saying “Don’t empty your bongs in here”), and nothing like what people in your age group would’ve experienced. 

I remember a roommate of one of my female friends talking about how casual she was about the letter she got each semester for being on the honor roll:

“You’d think they’d change the phrasing once in a while.”

I myself got on it one semester, and it reflected that the classes were ones I wanted to take to fulfill my requirements.

Far from being an anti-intellectual place, there was an air of casual anarchy from time to time, like one classmates’  “Moon Over M___________” when he would, indeed moon those at this nighttime event. 

Or the time that a fellow student from the same acting class and I ended up on a Physics lab together, he was surprised(more like his heart was in his throat wink  ) when I lied to the grad student about doing the data,(which got us a B), to which I replied, “What good is acting if you can’t use it once in a while?”

Or the time when a former roommate got me and my girlfriend to form a team to play at the College Bowl competitions being held at the time, that was fun, we called ourselves “The Bond” because he was a Chem major.

In short, exholt, you don’t know anything about what it was like back in the late 70s, so please speak about your own experiences in the future, rather than casual hearsay that is almost impossible to refute.

Comment #304: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  09/09  at  01:21 PM

Re: the liberal Christians thing - I do think there needs to be a distinction made between the sort of liberal Christian who is really into their church and the kind who just go to church on Easter and Christmas and identify as Christian but religion isn’t something they really think about or discuss ever, and isn’t really a part of their life. I’m much more tolerant of liberal religious people than most nontheists are these days, but I still don’t think I could date someone who was really into their church. I’ve noticed that those people, even though they try to be tolerant of nontheists, still don’t really get us. They tend to assume that people become atheists because they were raised with the fundamentalist, conservative, scary version of religion and they’d believe if only they knew about the liberal side of it. But see, while I left Christianity because of the ultra-conservative Missouri Synod Lutheranism I was getting in my first school and at my bio dad’s house, my stepdad is a liberal Presbyterian minister and he exposed me to the more accepting side of the religion - and that didn’t change my mind about being an agnostic.

Comment #305: Erda  on  09/10  at  10:11 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.