?

Log in

No account? Create an account
the deal breaker revisited. - The inexplicable charisma of the rival [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Just me.

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

the deal breaker revisited. [Jun. 16th, 2004|01:49 am]
Just me.
Hypothetically, lets say you met someone via LJ, a personal ad, or a pal who said "I have the perfect person for you". You have enough information (maybe you've emailed each other) to be at least interested in meeting or getting to know them. While you're getting to know them, what might constitute BY ITSELF an automatic "no thanks"?

The ones I picked in my poll are ones that I'd heard about or experienced; they may not be the "best" examples. For the purposes of this poll, assume that you like enough about them to continue to consider a romantic relationship with them, but the thing(s) you checked is enough on its own to quell your interest. You can check more than one, but they have to stand alone: If you'd date someone with kids or a vegan or a Republican, but not someone who's a vegan Republican with kids, you shouldn't check any of these.

Poll #308577 Let's be shallow

For you, which of the following is reason BY ITSELF to reject someone as a potential romantic partner? (check all that apply)

very different religious beliefs than you
0(0.0%)
very different political beliefs than you
0(0.0%)
geography (for example, long distance dating)
2(4.2%)
bad breath and/or body scent
2(4.2%)
height differences (not tall enough, too tall, etc)
0(0.0%)
has kids already
0(0.0%)
education level
0(0.0%)
income (too much/too little)
0(0.0%)
carnivore/vegetarian/vegan difference
0(0.0%)
overweight
0(0.0%)
body features (large/tiny penis, large/tiny breasts, etc)
0(0.0%)
don't like their friends
0(0.0%)
sexual experience/inexperience
0(0.0%)
drinking/smoking/drug use different from yours
0(0.0%)
none of these are reasons to automatically reject someone as a romantic partner.
3(6.2%)
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: plymouth
2004-06-16 05:33 am (UTC)
so I checked off drinking/smoking/drug use and I feel a little weird about that because at least in general I don't feel like drugs SHOULD be an automatic reject (though smoking or really excessive drinking would be). I don't have any real moral or ethical objection to them and I feel like if people think they need that in their lives then that's cool for them. I don't. HOWEVER, in ALL cases where I tried to get involved with someone who was into pot it never works out. It just ends up being too large of a difference in our outlooks on the world and we end up not being able to relate to each other on the level I'd like to be.

The carnivore/vegetarian one is pretty stupid I admit. But I grew up vegetarian and, well, pretty much hated it. I would NOT be able to tolerate dealing with that again on a daily basis. Too bad, because I hear vegans taste better... (in my extremely limited experience this is true).
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: the_autoclave
2004-06-16 07:54 am (UTC)
friends turns out to be an issue everytime. love 'em or hate 'em, friends have ben around longer than you, and are likely to still be there after you've gone - if you don't get along with eachother's pals, it's doomed.
drug use turns out to be an issue.
politics would, but i've never had the opportunity to date a racist or a fascist or whatever. i can deal with "compassionate conservative" - that's just arguments and "agreeing to differ".
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: herbaliser
2004-06-16 09:27 am (UTC)

mainly, just the extreme cases...

Long distance: been there, done that, hated it.
Religion: same thing. If they're passionate about it, it won't work. If they're relaxed about it, maybe, but I just can't take people who Believe seriously.
Kids: kids creep, and people who have children love their own at least. That's always going to be something more important than you, and I can admit that I won't accept that.
Overweight: I'm utterly shallow and can't "get it up" for fat guys.
Substances: I'm moderate in my use and won't accept either extreme. I want to "share experiences."
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tyrsalvia
2004-06-16 11:29 am (UTC)
Despite the fact that I have actually broken up with someone for religious differences, I didn't check that box. There are too many variables here to make someone an automatic no for me. I'd have to talk to them a lot about these issues before I decided it was a no.

Political differences have a huge impact on someone's view of the whole world. I could date someone that didn't agree with me 100%, but I could never date someone who was pro-life or otherwise very conservative.

The problem with someone who has kids is that I don't want kids ever, and don't much like kids. If I wanted kids someday, that might be different, but as it is, the idea of having to deal with kids on a regular basis would make someone an automatic no.

Also, I could never date a smoker. Or a heavy drinker, or someone who uses a whole lot of drugs all the time. If someone takes substances intelligently every once in a while, good, but I'm not up for dating a pothead or junkie or even someone whose idea of a good time always includes getting "fucked up" on something.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tyrven
2004-06-16 12:27 pm (UTC)
I did business with a dating service a couple years ago and as part of it was exposed to a lot of the criteria that they use to match their members (a system which was originally based on the military's team building profiles). One of the things that the company owner pointed out that really stuck with me is that it doesn't matter what someone's beliefs are as much as how passionate they are about their beliefs. As such, a passionate liberal and conservative would get along better than a passionate and apathetic liberal. This is pretty consistent with my experience. A related variable pertained to how religious an individual is; this had nothing to do with belief but rather dogma and structure. As my client pointed out, on a 0-10 scale a deacon in a church might be a 10 and Jesus a 5. Conversely, most athiests I know are probably pushing ten.

Anyway, I thought that was an interesting way of looking at it.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: drexle
2004-06-16 04:15 pm (UTC)
I think that the religious beliefs and the politics are real dealbreakers for me. I think that anyone who is strongly religious, or fanatically anti-religious would turn me off quickly.

I'm not afraid to admit that I wouldn't date a woman who looked or smelled bad, and weight in either extreme can be an issue, but if you ask me what "overweight" is, I can only say that I know it when I see it, and that too many women think that they are too fat to be attractive, when most of them are in fact really really hot. Only one woman who I have ever seen naked did not think she was fat, and that was the gaunt woman with fangs. Every other woman thought herself to be fat, including one who was practically as gaunt as the fanged chick. I didn't think any of them were, even the ones who had a more womanly figure.

Things that I did not check that I may have in the past:

Kids - Okay, I still would not seriously, long-term style date a woman who wanted kids, or possibly even one who has them already, but it would not be a dealbreaker for a casual, fun relationship.

alchohol/smoking/drugs - I'm not into any of the above, but as time goes on I care less about whether a woman is or not as long as she isn't seriously addicted, and as long as it doesn't interfere significantly with our relationship. I guess I've just dated entirely too many lushes and potheads lately. ;p Cigs would still be a huge turnoff if she insisted on smoking in my presence frequently. I have dated smokers who can control their desire to take a puff, and it wasn't so bad, but I think I have something else I'd rather them smoke than a cigarrette.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: plymouth
2004-06-16 08:10 pm (UTC)
I'm not fat! just sayin'

seriously, that one bugs me too. "fat" to me means "seriously overweight" not "got a couple of extra pounds". I may not currently be at my ideal body weight, but I'm definitely within one standard deviation from it, which makes me pretty happy. I have never been fat and have never called myself that.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: drexle
2004-06-17 08:32 am (UTC)
Yeah, and if all those icons and pics are recent then I have to concur.

Heh, some people who are seriously overweight use "a couple of extra pounds" as a euphemism for their state of being, thus muddying the waters of clarity even further.

Thinking back on that one rather thin woman who thought herself to be fat, perhaps she has some justification considering that in her high school pictures, she really was seriously overweight. Even I still struggle with that legacy of skewed self-perception sometimes... but she lost *all* her wieght while I still have just a little left that I'm too computerized to bother toning up. However, because this woman was blessed with a nice curvy figure, she still thinks it makes her fat. Meh.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: drexle
2004-06-17 07:57 am (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot...

How could I forget "long distance?" I can't see myself doing that again unless all of the following were true:

a) She's not scared to meet in person.
b) She comes to me, not the other way around.
c) She doesn't expect any sort of emotional or sexual monogamy from me while distances remain long. ('cause I'm never expecting such things from a woman ever again)
d) She understands that unless she moves to my local area, I will not persue her with any seriousness beyond flirtation.
e) I've totally lost my mind.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: whod81
2004-06-17 06:18 am (UTC)
IF IT MOVES I'M GAME.

oh.. you said date? :)
(Reply) (Thread)