• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

dealbreakers

DM said:
I called you a feminist because you're spouting that same old tired bullshit that all the illogical, militant, misled feminists spout. If you want to know what you are currently reminding me of, go find that recent thread about "rape enablers".

And no, I don't think about taller women being less attractive, because you don't get to choose who you find attractive and who you don't. If you could, there'd be a whole lot less heartache in this world.
Click to expand...

I am not acting like men themselves are all a threat to women, and how is my side the illogical one? I am not the one who thinks height discrimination is meaningful here. My side is that it is not an inherent attraction thing. People never actually stop to think "is what I am espousing fucking ridiculous" because, guess what, it is. Being 5'10" while the girl is 6'3" is not going to be a turn off for any guy who does not have his head up his ass. I find it hilarious that you have to extrapolate some deeper anger to what I am saying though.
 
Synre said:
Yeah, I'm glad someone said this (and with that word in particular) -- to the best of my knowledge dating doesn't tend to be like you're ordering at a restaurant and filling in checkboxes of traits you want and asking them to hold the tomatoes. In real life people, people have their own experiences and traits and probably you're not going to find exactly what you wanted or wind up falling in love with something completely different than what you expected to find, the tomatoes are already there, baby. But that word, compromise, that's what makes it work. Sometimes it's gotta stop being all about you. And your meticulously assembled list of undesirable traits.

Relationships leave plenty of time for people to slowly and creepily converge into being the same person anyway.
Click to expand...

This is why I split my list into two. The items on the turn-offs list, while not desirable, are bearable and by themselves would not necessarily end a relationship or the chance of a relationship. Dealbreakers, with the exception of smoking, are characteristics that I find bad in a person, regardless of what relationship I have with said person. I hate people who consistently refuse to apply logic to their arguments, I hate people who lie to me for no good reason and I hate people who manipulate others, so of course finding out that my girlfriend has any of those characteristics would be an instant GTFO YOU EVIL BITCH!

So yes, there has to be compromise, but not total compromise.

However, when you say that dating isn't like filling in checkboxes, I would be inclined to disagree somewhat. For you see, you have to somehow get to know the person you're dating and, in the case of real dealbreakers (as opposed to mere turn-offs), surely you want to know about those asap. You can potentially find out about these during the date, so why not put her to the test there and then? If you're worried about it coming off as unromantic or getting biased results from being too obvious, then do it discreetly.
 
CaptKirby said:
I am not acting like men themselves are all a threat to women, and how is my side the illogical one? I am not the one who thinks height discrimination is meaningful here. My side is that it is not an inherent attraction thing.
Click to expand...

Thanks for answering your own question: as usual, you are presenting your own opinion as an unmitigated fact. Hence, you're being illogical.

People never actually stop to think "is what I am espousing fucking ridiculous" because, guess what, it is. Being 5'10" while the girl is 6'3" is not going to be a turn off for any guy who does not have his head up his ass. I find it hilarious that you have to extrapolate some deeper anger to what I am saying though.
Click to expand...

As a 6'2" man, I don't LOOK FOR or actively PURSUE any woman that is as tall or taller than me, because I will inevitable feel subconsciously intimidated. I freely admit there are oodles of drop-dead beautiful woman who fit that description, and I am not saying that I couldn't fall in love with one of them. But as it stands, at this very moment, I have a "type," and I happen to prefer petite women. Nothing you say about some contrived "height discrimination" will make me feel guilty about that.
 
Rayquaza2233 said:
Yes, but what are the chances that both of you adhere to each other's lists? Relationships are a two-way street.

btw alt+s to submit posts owns
Click to expand...

Well that would be why most relationships end up failing..

Also this thread reminded me of this picture somehow:


VaKyL.jpg
 
Lol that's a funny picture.......but no. Prince charming? More like prince badass, Mr. Bad boy or Mr. Confidence. I am guessing a lot of girls start to lose the "where is my prince charming" image as they grow up and seek out the bad boys etc. they come back to prince charming or start looking for a nice guy when they are ready to settle down. This is why I am usually not myself when I am trying to get with some chick.

maybe I'll post my dealbreakers(turn offs mostly) later.
 
Rayquaza2233 said:
Being the bitter nerd I am, I think I disproved relationships with (likely incorrect) math.

Let's say there are 25 characteristics a person's SO must have. (I hope that's conservative n_n) The SO can either have them or not have them. 2^25 possibilities. There's one combination that yields that, 25C25.

(1/(2^25)) * 100 = 0.00000298023223876953125% chance of a person finding someone with their qualities. We have to square this since this is also the chance of our theoretical person fitting his theoretical SO's qualities.

8.8817841970012523233890533447266e-12% chance this happens. Multiply that by the 6,775,235,700 people in the world and there are 0.0601761813712187176861334592104 people in the world that are meant for our theoretical person. 0.06. Not even a whole person.
Click to expand...

I actually did this for myself, using population demographic statistics and a lot of math.

Your analysis is slightly off because it does not take into account the distribution of those characteristics among the population. For example, one of my "soulmate" criteria was an IQ above a certain level (I realize that IQ is a poor measure of intelligence shut up), which I found to occur in about 20% of women. Another criteria was a certain preferred height range, which turned out to occur in 90% of women. So basically, the total chances of finding your soulmate also depends on the type of criteria you choose, in addition to the number of criteria. If the qualities in question are fairly common in the population, the chances of finding a soulmate increase exponentially.
 
I think we can improve on the model a bit more. Instead of multiplying by the whole population we only need half of that, assuming a straight relationship. So the chances have effectively doubled; a big improvement I’d say.
 
lol leave it to smogon to come up with complex formulae to describe things.

Ada, straight relationship can be assumed to be one of a person's 25 characteristics on their list in this model, so halving the total isn't necessary.

However,in addition to weighting things in terms of how common they are in the general population, I feel like there should also be some way to factor in how strongly you care about each factor on your list, so if you were really strict about having to have a nonsmoker you could exclude nonsmokers entirely, but if you had something less important to you that could be overcome if a person met all your other criteria (like boob size or height or weight or something), then not all of the people lacking your less-important criteria should be excluded. i dunno.

You know, online dating sites have compatibility tests and encourage you to make lists like that so you can be matched with someone you're more likely to want to be with, supposedly. I wonder what sort of formula they use...?
 
anyone else think that arbitrary 25 is a bit high? I don't think anyone's list was THAT long, was it? Unless you're including a characteristic for every minute detail.
 
Yeah. 12 seems more accurate, no? In any event, that gives

2^12 = 4096

=>

0.000244140625%

=>

0.000000059604645
x # of people in the world

gives

403.835517168045044 soulmates per person who has 12 significant characteristics.

either rayquaza or I or doing something wrong.

sounds better though?
 
Vader said:
http://images.wikia.com/yugioh/images/7/77/MusicianKingMRD-NA-C-UE.jpg[/IMG*]

edit: hes supposed to have tight jeans i guess[/QUOTE]
Random note: I always found it funny that the two cards that you had to fuse together to get that card are women.

Uh I really don't what my dealbreakers/turnoffs would since I haven't dated in forever, but I know 1 is that they can't use tobacco products because I'm allergic to tobacco.
Click to expand...
 
Ugly feet. I can accept any other "bad" physical feature, EXCEPT for ugly feet. I cringe just thinking about it.

Oh and if youre not a total complete bitch, I for some reason wont like you. I cant even explain it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top