-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
dealbreakers
- Thread starter Ivysaur
- Start date
Hm...
- Drinking- Puts me off at any amount, but I know that I gotta let that slide to an extent (my girlfriend does it casually, meh). Getting absolutely smashed constantly is a sigh to get the hell out of there.
- Stupidity- academically or otherwise, it hurts. However, you can get away with being school dumb if you can make up for it in other departments.
- Refusal to tolerate "geeky" stuff- Actually, girls in general are pretty good about this, but I can imagine it being hell.
Sexual preferences are not a form of bigotry.
It's interesting to me that you picked out height though, of all things. Are guys who don't date fat girls bigots too? What's the difference between being too big vertically and being too big horizontally?
I have plenty of dealbreakers. For instance, I would not be with a girl who seriously thought that Girl, Interrupted was a good movie. I would, however, love to get with a 6'5" girl who thought Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolf was a good movie and did not spout pathetic banalities like "I only want to date girls shorter than me / I only want to date guys shorter than me".
FlareBlitz, preferences that are only preferences because of predefined "gender norms" are sexist. In this case, it is one that is reinforced by public ridicule and humiliation when you defy it, so I am not going to buy an argument about it being anything inherent. Why do you think fat is comparable? You can control weight, but you cannot control height. In this case being tall is the only acceptable form of "man" and short is the only acceptable form of "female", and just because they are averages does not mean that it should be accepted as necessary.
Also I dispute how this is a "sexual" preference. This is a selection criteria, not a like or dislike of: doggy style / whips / licking a sexual organ / various disgusting bodily discharges, et cetera. This is dismissing someone as attractive based on something arbitrary because it is "supposed to be", just petty conformism.
FlareBlitz, preferences that are only preferences because of predefined "gender norms" are sexist. In this case, it is one that is reinforced by public ridicule and humiliation when you defy it, so I am not going to buy an argument about it being anything inherent. Why do you think fat is comparable? You can control weight, but you cannot control height. In this case being tall is the only acceptable form of "man" and short is the only acceptable form of "female", and just because they are averages does not mean that it should be accepted as necessary.
Also I dispute how this is a "sexual" preference. This is a selection criteria, not a like or dislike of: doggy style / whips / licking a sexual organ / various disgusting bodily discharges, et cetera. This is dismissing someone as attractive based on something arbitrary because it is "supposed to be", just petty conformism.
drinking and smoking own, y'all some squares
-MY BF/GF CAN'T DRINK
counter:
counter:
Dating based on gender norms is sexist? That's ridiculous. By that argument a guy should be equally predisposed to date a cross-dressing tomboy with short hair and no tits as he would be to date someone like Christina Hendricks. Many gender norms are an entirely necessary component of physical and sexual attraction. And unfortunately, some of it is uncontrollable, like height.
If someone is taller or shorter than an individual's selection criteria, then they are automatically "not attractive". Moreoever, I doubt that anyone is refusing to date people of a certain height because of social pressure, but more so because that's simply what they prefer.
Hey CK, I prefer to date people with penises over people with vaginas. Yup, you heard me correctly: I prefer to date men over women, and with all things being equal, I'd choose to date the man. Even if the woman met all of my other standards and the man met almost none and I was forced to pick just one of the two, I'd pick the man because I'd most likely still be more attracted to him. And a large proportion of society frowns on homosexual couples, and my preference matches the sociological norm of heterosexuality. You "can control" weight, but you cannot control gender without some expensive-ass surgery. Does that make me sexist?? Does it make me a homophobe? I'd like to think not, seeing as I'm a huge proponent of human rights across the board.
Seriously though, we all have our preferences. I happen to like taller guys, and I prefer it if they are not morbidly obese. Some girls prefer shorter guys, though there are fewer of them... but then again, I've come close to dating a guy who was shorter than me (until he turned out to be a huge asshole), so whatever. You probably prefer thin girls, but some girls are just naturally fatter than others, even with diet and exercise being equal. I have friends who eat wayyyy healthier than I do, exercise far more, and yet they are still fatter...
There's such a fine line between what we have control over and what we don't, both in terms of what we can accomplish with our own bodies and what we are attracted to in others. In the end, every criterion anyone might have in terms of things they look for in a partner can be construed as arbitrary, so STFU and let everyone else like who they like.
Considering that people are mocked as girls for being too tall, guys are mocked for being too short, and that couples with these factors involved are mocked and/or are privy to these factors, I am pretty sure it affects it. I like girls with short hair if that is your equivalent of a "tomboy", and I like D cups the most but have still dated girls A-D (and would love to hit up the F-H range). It is irrelevant either way; attraction to tits period is a much more inherent thing than being sexist about what a man or woman should be in terms of bone composition and how much of those bones there are. Could I be with someone with O cups? No, they look fucking ridiculous. A 6'5" girl does not look fucking ridiculous, just taller than you.
Mountain Dewgong, thanks for posting a good example of a sexual preference (although not one I have, feet are creepy; it was something a girlfriend prior liked but I was too scared to try at that point).
Lanturn, for someone who harps so much on people for being ignorant bigots, here you are being an ignorant bigot. Comparing an inherent choice of "liking men or liking women" to height is specious. It is just gender discrimination and conformity, because logic makes it pretty easy to accept a girl of any height. Maybe someone could have such a love for short, fat asses that it would be hard to fall in love with a tall ass, but with a few weeks I am sure even that obstacle could be overcome, or vice versa. I hope you meet a charming 5'0" man!
I do not care about if a girl has mild love handles or something, but I do not get why I should have to keep introducing disclaimers into this. I promise you, I understand that there are naturally attractive or unattractive features to people - some people have a particular dislike for a gap between front teeth, for instance. This is not about some singular aversion though, and it is not comparable to weight or anything else. This is just something that comes from endlessly reinforced gender discrimination based on the line of thought that women HAVE to be "womanly", that men HAVE to be "manly", or at least the man has to be manlier than the woman and vice versa in any particular relationship. It is laughable.
Mountain Dewgong, thanks for posting a good example of a sexual preference (although not one I have, feet are creepy; it was something a girlfriend prior liked but I was too scared to try at that point).
Lanturn, for someone who harps so much on people for being ignorant bigots, here you are being an ignorant bigot. Comparing an inherent choice of "liking men or liking women" to height is specious. It is just gender discrimination and conformity, because logic makes it pretty easy to accept a girl of any height. Maybe someone could have such a love for short, fat asses that it would be hard to fall in love with a tall ass, but with a few weeks I am sure even that obstacle could be overcome, or vice versa. I hope you meet a charming 5'0" man!
I do not care about if a girl has mild love handles or something, but I do not get why I should have to keep introducing disclaimers into this. I promise you, I understand that there are naturally attractive or unattractive features to people - some people have a particular dislike for a gap between front teeth, for instance. This is not about some singular aversion though, and it is not comparable to weight or anything else. This is just something that comes from endlessly reinforced gender discrimination based on the line of thought that women HAVE to be "womanly", that men HAVE to be "manly", or at least the man has to be manlier than the woman and vice versa in any particular relationship. It is laughable.
I'm not sure why you think attraction based on boobs is better than attraction based on height; that's really the crux of my point. It's no more sexist to say "this girl's boobs are too small for me, I wouldn't date her" than it is to say "this girl is too tall for me, I wouldn't date her". The idea that a woman should have big breasts, or the idea that a woman should be thin, or the idea that a woman should not have hair in certain places, is no different than the idea of a woman not being above a certain height. I just really don't see why you make a distinction between them such that one is sexist while the others are not. I am especially befuddled by your next paragraph:
You draw a comparison between femininity/masculinity and height and claim that both are sexist, but that's exactly what I don't get. I prefer women that have feminine qualities (such as being good at cooking, being curvy, and having a soft, high-pitched voice). I know women enjoy the masculine qualities I have (musculature, confidence, dominance in bed). I consider height similar to these qualities, and I suspect that you would agree with that. What I don't get, then, is why you think judging a partner based on their height is any more sexist than judging them based on physical fitness, confidence, actions in bed, personality traits, or anything else.
I'm not too fond of serial killers tbh.
Someone said something earlier about holding doors open. don't do this for women and never will. I am not in the business of holding doors open for people, and hopefully whoever I'm around (dating or otherwise) is able bodied enough to handle light tasks else they shouldnt go out in public. I really feel like I'm respecting people more because its like I'm saying "I have every confidence that you are capable enough as a person to do things yourself." Am I a strange person because of this?
I think they meant more along the lines of, not letting the door smack their face since they're like 5 feet behind you, not exactly rushing up ahead to open/hold the door for them. Just so it isn't like you force them to back up in order to dodge the swinging door or whatever.
You don't tend to be around the elderly? No old/disabled people allowed out where you live?
I don't think it's strange; I've heard people say this before.
Like Al_Alchemist said, I'm not sprinting ahead of a crowd to open the door for them all. I simply like to hold the door for people when I can--and want others to hold the door--because it's a little thing that I can do to help a person, man or woman, young or old, stranger or not. I know that 99% of people I hold the door for can open it themselves, but it's not about being able-bodied. It's just my sense of manners, that you hold the door open for people because it's the nice thing to do. I wouldn't want to let the door shut in someone's face and be perceived as rude, either. Or what if they have their hands full?
I've never had a person say, "What, think I can't open a door? I can handle this myself, thanks anyways." If you were to let a door slam in a girl's face, do you think she'd feel happy because you respected her ability to open doors or feel slighted because you violated what is a generally-observed standard?
yeah, exactly what i said in my post bro.
I hadn't really thought of it that way, but it makes sense and I can respect that.
EDIT: Just to clarify my exact position (i sense some confusion) I'm going to explain exactly how my door-holding-open philosophy actually works irl. Essentially:
1. I am not running up to open doors for women
2. if i am in the process of opening the door for myself and anyone is coming up behind my I hold the door open and pass it off to them when they get close enough to take it. I don't leave it to shut on them, that is rude.
3. I am/have been around the disabled probably more frequently than some (ive worked at the VA Hospitals), if I see that they need/will need assisstance, i assist them
I'm not like a mean person who has only disdain for all of societies norms, I just don't hold doors open lol
Well then are you around the elderly/disabled at times? Do you just go 'meh they're outside, they don't need any assistance at all'?
I'm bored so I'll post my actual deal breakers:
-obese
-nasty BO/hygiene
-big penis
-hairy (don't mind a bush too much tho)
-unemployed/no education/mooch
-small penis
-any penis in between
-anything other than female
-nasty diet and lack of exercise
-anti-weed
-smoker (not weed obvs)
-doesn't laugh at my hilarious jokes
-dislikes my friends/antisocial freak
-has only male friends, no female friends (usually crazy)
-self centered/attention whore
-doesn't listen to music/appreciate music
-under the age of 18 (could be stretched a bit if she is sexi ;) )
-has cheated before
-still in very close contact with ex (hang out etc)
-is dumb
-daddy issues (like really severe)
I think that's it.
-obese
-nasty BO/hygiene
-big penis
-hairy (don't mind a bush too much tho)
-unemployed/no education/mooch
-small penis
-any penis in between
-anything other than female
-nasty diet and lack of exercise
-anti-weed
-smoker (not weed obvs)
-doesn't laugh at my hilarious jokes
-dislikes my friends/antisocial freak
-has only male friends, no female friends (usually crazy)
-self centered/attention whore
-doesn't listen to music/appreciate music
-under the age of 18 (could be stretched a bit if she is sexi ;) )
-has cheated before
-still in very close contact with ex (hang out etc)
-is dumb
-daddy issues (like really severe)
I think that's it.
The proper way to get through most doors is just to push in stride, stopping and holding is a waste of time. That does not really apply to a relationship with two people going in at once though...that would be more of a "whoever gets there first" opens it situation. If you want to be like me, just stop and stare at them for not opening it. They will cave before you do!
Holding open a door for someone shouldn't be a major ordeal, its just a courteous act. You can break social norms in other ways if you feel a distaste for them, but in anyone else's eyes letting a door slam in the face of someone who is only a few feet away from you is just called being a prick.
Noone is going to look at you and think "wow isn't he an independent and well-managed individual".
Noone is going to look at you and think "wow isn't he an independent and well-managed individual".