8. conservatives (though i have to admit i'd probably be willing to bend on this a little bit if the person in question were an extremely moderate conservative)
For some reason I read this as, "(though I have to admit I'd probably be willing to bend on this a little bit if the person in question were an extremely hott conservative)"
I wouldn't even bother making a list like this, because the first, most fundamental, most intuitive characteristic I would put on a list to reject I've already accepted twice, and that is: doesn't read for pleasure. So it's obvious I don't really have a list.
Well, Becks, maybe I should have listened/be listening to you and John Waters. The first little relationship basically ended with my internal narrative going thus: "Ohmygodgetthatthingawayfrommeiamsomuchsmarterthanyouicanhardlystandtolookatitmuchless" so maybe I should be making and following my list. (My internal narrative probably would have started that way too, but since the relationship was conducted in my second language and his first, I managed to trick myself for awhile. He was hott though.) But the second one has more to do with ADD/dyslexia/a lot of competing priorities for someone who has a lot to do that is difficult for him.
(Not a BF, but...) I had a roommate once who didn't read and she ended up going batshit insane and moving out in the middle of the night without telling me she was leaving. I thought not owning any books was suspect when she moved in but that experience confirmed my belief of not reading = red flag.
Totally irrational prejudice but, hey, it's worked for me.
So, I just reread apostropher's list. What's wrong with religion? I go to church, but I can make fun of the priest with the best of them. And good vicars have wonderful senses of humor--especially the clever ones.
Doctrinaire atheists are almost as bad as the fundagelicals.
The religion thing Bostonian girl mentions strikes me as weird as well. If these lists are meant to capture attributes which corelate with people you are unlikely to have a good relationship with, then fine. That's just an empirical finding. If one reads these lists as enumerations of sufficient conditions for not wanting to date someone -- which is what they seem to be -- then certain kinds of anti-religious feeling seems undermotivated. It seems particularly undermotivated when the person "ruling out" religion in a mate doesn't seem to care much about religion one way or another. If it's not a big deal to you, why should you care that your honey has a tasteful shrine to Cthulhu in the corner? Some possible motivations include:
1. I want to share in everything my mate finds important. If s/he finds religion important, I can't share that. [Criticism: No who's being naive? You will never share in everything your mate considers important. Having this as a requirement for love defines the practice of making the best the enemy of the good, and seems as good a recipe as any for dying alone after spurning lots of lovely people who would have made you happy.]
2. Religion is ipso facto stupid to believe in, and I don't want to date stupid people. [Criticism: No, it really isn't.]
3. I don't want to spend my Sundays/Saturdays/Birthday of Moloch in some boring service. [Criticism: my friend, even if you date Richard Dawkin's #1 fan, you are going to spend more time than you can imagine doing boring things with your honey that s/he does not find boring. See reference to naivete above.]
4. In fact, belief in religion is not a sufficient "no date" factor, but rather correlates highly with "no date" profiles. [Criticism: none a priori, as I suggested above. As an empiraical proposition, however, it seems dubious.]
What other options are there?
Apostropher, I'd love to know, why do you insist on driving Kabblah-toting starlets away from your door?
Catherine mentioned no objection to massive amounts of back hair, so I guess fashion have changed, and I might have a chance, if I lose thirty pounds and grow ten inches.
I think that, just as "no conservatives" automatically comes with the exception "unless the conservative is very moderate or very hot", so too "no religious people" automatically comes with "unless the religionist is Pascal or very hot".
Apostropher, I'd love to know, why do you insist on driving Kabblah-toting starlets away from your door?
Starlets, being young, demonstrate, ipso facto, insincerity in their beliefs when they discuss matters kabbalistic, since one is supposed to be at least forty and have a thorough command of the Talmud (and, one presumes, the Torah) before reading kabbalistic texts. So maybe that's the reason, or indicative of a reason.
Religions do not constitute reasonable comprehensive doctrines, thus, they will have no place in my achievable utopia. I couldn't bear to part from my loved ones for that reason, so I steel my heart.
A good friend of mine has a mother who's a devout Christian and a father who's a devout Muslim. She was raised in both religions, and was allowed to choose when she got old enough. She chose Christianity, though she now observes Ramadan.
No more than is wrong with vegetarianism or Capricorns, which is to say nothing in and of itself. Just not compatible with me. I wasn't warned this had to be logical. Also, the important modifier there was "devout."
And good vicars have wonderful senses of humor
Yeah, but vicars rank very low on my dateability scale.
Doctrinaire atheists are almost as bad as the fundagelicals.
Absolutely. Often worse.
why do you insist on driving Kabblah-toting starlets away from your door?
It's my wife that keeps driving them away. I'd be open to letting them stay the night.
>just make fun of it entirely too often to have that in a dating relationship.
My wife makes fun of what I hold dear all the time. Is this not usual?
* * *
Ben W, do I not also recall that marriage and children are a prerequisite to licit study of Kabbalah. If so, you have to hand it to Madonna: first class all the way.
Ben W, do I not also recall that marriage and children are a prerequisite to licit study of Kabbalah. If so, you have to hand it to Madonna: first class all the way.
I believe being Jewish is also an implied prerequisite. Male, too, probably. So you can see why the rabbis are unimpressed.
My wife makes fun of what I hold dear all the time
I 'd have no problem with that; I make fun of what I hold dear. It's the other direction that I've had it create trouble. Look baa, all the reasonableness and logic in the world won't dissuade me. If a squeaky voice passes muster as an exclusion criterion, then surely deeply held, orthogonal belief systems clear the bar.
I'm having trouble with the concept of a doctrinate atheist. This may be an error on my part. I'm too used to thinking of "doctrine" as a complex set of rules, guidelines, and beliefs. Atheism hasn't any positive content, but is simply a refutation. Ok, I could see it having one positive content, which is the requirement of empirical evidence in order for their to be belief. Still, this is far, far different from what we think of as doctrine when we think of religious doctrine. Perhaps you're thinking of evangelical atheists? I readily grant such people can be annoying.
Anyway, Apostropher dodged the bullet; I'm going to step right into its path. I'm not evangelical, excepting the possibility that I would be choosing to live with this person. I would question and prod. I would be so damn annoying. Why? I do not accept religious beliefs. But, more, truth be told, I'm scornful of them. I cannot respect them. Pascal? Please. Do I need to trot out a list of the geniuses of history holding absolutely wack beliefs? You know as well as I that it would be a long list. Besides, Pascal lived before Hume and Darwin - among the first thinkers to give us glimpses that matter does indeed organize itself. I have little doubt that I would have been devoutly, likely even arrogantly, religious at such a time. But I don't today see any good reason to believe in omnipotence. Not a single reason. On the other hand, I think there are very good reasons not to.
You ruined my 41. Anyway, I have the opposite problem: I can't take people who dismiss religion very seriously, despite not being religious myself. You should think about what it is in the lives of its most noble practitioners, not about what your stupid neighbors do. And I'm going to bed, so don't you go arguing with me.
Besides, I AM DRINKING VIRGIN EGGNOG! I have whisky, rum and beer, but CAN'T DRINK IT. This next week and a half, I AM GOING TO MAKE GARY FARBER LOOK LIKE A PUPPY DOG.
I suppose I should add that, strictly speaking, I am agnostic. I am also, strictly speaking, agnostic as to the existence of unicorns and leprechauns. I still do not respect the beliefs of those who believe in such.
You should think about what it is in the lives of its most noble practitioners, not about what your stupid neighbors do.
If I understand this, I think I accept it. I'm quite interested in, say, the Jeffersonian Bible. It's not that I abhor everything religious holds sacred. I'm willing to think and talk about what religions have to say, but outside of their rule structure.
I think "doctrinate atheist" (sic) means someone who is totally convinced that there is no God (not just unconvinced that there is one) and holds to that belief just as fervently as the pious hold to religion. That is, explicitly not agnostic but more like the polar opposite of devout. I suppose they can either evangelize or not.
I am a doctrinaire atheist. Like Dr Feynmann, if asked about the need for meaning and purpose in the universe, I answer "Why?." Not militant, and I find the blithely irreligious quite interesting.
I also sometimes think I am going to go to hell, partly for lying in blog comments.
Are these absolutes? I'm short and fat and don't like pop culture or idie rock, but I'm extremely not a teetotaler, a conservative, a vegetarian, or religious, and I'm a fanatical blogger. Do extra credit points cancel out spome of the zeros?
i don't get it - you can rule people out based on their genes and where they were born (i noticed that in the thread from ogged's list, none of you are allowed to date me because i am genetically short and blonde -- and several of you even went so far as to agree that i am probably a nutcase based on this -- although, if i get fat, everything will be okay again) but you argue about whether it might be narrow-minded to rule them out based on religion???
it's okay, i'm planning to find a medium-sized, pesca-vege-tarian, eggnog-drinking danish or swedish man who is not a vicar, knows Pascal, and will read the zohar out loud to me at bedtime for my next boyfriend. eep.
mmf! - I'm willing to let anybody rule anybody else out for any reason. And I'm saying that mostly because now that I know you're thin and blonde, I'm being very, very careful not to say anything that might set you off.
no, it's okay apostropher. it's more interesting when people say what they think.
in a moment of earnestness, i would point out that saying "i don't date x type of people" is different from saying "x type of people are always this way."
after all, apostropher, i'm thin and blonde - if you're not careful, you might set me off!
But wait, it was thin, pretty blondes, so AFAIK you could still be perfectly sane. [Oh God, she's gonna snap and turn violent. Think fast, think fast...] Or you might fall under the "almost always" exception that I listed originally.
For the record, I'm 6'1". AWFULLY convenient how I just barely fit in under the bar, isn't it? I'm wondering what other criteria Catherine has lowered or dropped so that she can slum it with me.
OK, much worse than all of this religiosity or lack thereof talk, I cannot talk to (once it's brought up), let alone date, anyone who talks about astrology as if it's at all meaningful. I have in fact walked out of rooms in order to avoid insulting people I don't know to their faces when this comes up.
No one smarter than me. No one dumber than me. No one hotter than me. No one uglier than me. No one who does not share my tastes in food, humor, music, and politics. Above all no one who is too much like me.
slolernr in 28 makes the main point about religion that would bother me, and it has to do with having children. that's just not the way i envision raising my child, and if i marry somebody who is religious, i imagine it becoming a pretty contentious point. but overall i wouldn't be against somebody who is somewhat religious but just not very observant about it, or very casual about it. shrug. but i like i said, if they're hott, then all bets are off. cause then i could have pretty children.
44: Thanks ogged. I think that this is an important point.
27: I saw apo's original answer and thought that it was an inadequate response. (I don't mean to judge him, and since he's married it's a moo (sic) point.) One can be quite religious without being pious or terribly devout, without taking oneself or one's religion too seriously.
I'm perfectly willing to make fun of my own religion or have others make fun of it. Parts of it are ridiculous. I'd probably just smile a bit. I might get annoyed by someone who chose to persist in making ignorant statements--and that could cause trouble with someone like apostropher (he takes pleasure in the joke too much to check the truth or factual reality of the claim about the people or their beliefs.)
And you people don't know what you're missing when you scorn all vicars. There are some hott women priests.
Osner--it was an allusion to W.'s use of the word moo for moot. Since I was writing in a semi-serious vein, I thought that the joke would be missed unless I called attention to the error.
Okay, first off, on a list where we're excluding blondes for being insane and women who wear heels for being too high maintenance and women who wear makeup as tramps, excluding the religious for no terribly good reason is perfectly fine.
But in case baa wants an answer (I suspect #2 is most of it, given the people who seem to think that, having never met a Christian, they're all mentally challenged.):
5. Religion isn't like a hobby, or following a sports team (usually). If the person is seriously religious, then it's going to affect their entire world-view and entire life in ways their atheist partner cannot understand. I don't just mean inevitable political disagreements (which could happen anyway), but believing in a whole afterlife is going to Seem Weird. Making decisions based on what to expect in that afterlife is going to be Really Weird. Expecting one to raise their children based on that afterlife is Intolerably Weird.
And dude, if they're devout, you're probably not getting laid, at least not without guilt, so....
"it's okay, i'm planning to find a medium-sized, pesca-vege-tarian, eggnog-drinking danish or swedish man who is not a vicar, knows Pascal, and will read the zohar out loud to me at bedtime for my next boyfriend. eep."
By scandinavian or US standards? Americans are really short. But I've never drank eggnog, so it's a moot point.
I suspect #2 is most of it, given the people who seem to think that, having never met a Christian, they're all mentally challenged.
I can say, emphatically, that this is not my rationale. My father got his master's degree from Southern Seminary, I grew up in (and enjoyed growing up in) Southern Baptist churches, have married into practicing Greek Orthodox and Irish Catholic families, live in the South where they're not exactly hard to meet, yadda yadda yadda. Even the last insane blonde's mother was a Methodist minister, though that's confusing the categories and perhaps best to leave it alone.
The reason I don't (er, didn't) date devout Christians is the dull and predictable regularity of this very conversation.
And apostropher, I'm never sure what is meant by devout. I might be called devout, but I laugh at the term and make fun of many who are excessively pious. I do go to church regularly.
I suspect that when people are saying 'devout', they might mean something more specific than the regular churchgoer. Maybe the sort that has to preface everything with how God told them to vote Republican?
Good lord, but that woman wouldn't want to date me. Not that it's ever a surprise.
1, 2, 3, 6.
"I AM GOING TO MAKE GARY FARBER LOOK LIKE A PUPPY DOG."
Kewl, because I did my sodden drinking last week, and I'm done for the whole year!
Although I'm perfectly happy to engage in enthusiastic licking under the right circumstances.
Ah, 52. Although I do like much pop culture.
I'm completely there with 59. Us Scorpios are like that.
"No one smarter than me. No one dumber than me."
Smarter than me is a highly desirable, and possibly essential, attribute. Dumber than me, without getting into multiple forms of intelligence, the need not to confuse lack of given knowledge with smarts, and so on, tends to be highly problematic for me. I have trouble keeping my mouth shut, and restraining the sarcasm. No one knows this about me. (Although I really did think it was unfair when the girlfriend-professor at Major Eastern Colleges who grew up in Boston and was then teaching at Columbia started yelling at me merely because my eyebrows popped when she said she'd never heard of Radio City Music Hall or Rockefellar Center; I imagine it was pent up from less reasonable responses on my part.)
But, in general, complementary traits are often as desirable and rewarding as similar traits; this is why rules, for me at least, seem emotionally desirable, but not necessarily at all wise. Also, the unknown unknowns.
Ooh, touche apostropher. (I know there's an accent there--I'm too lazy to figure out how to put one in.)
Well, I would probably date an agnostic, but I don't think that I could stomach a Southern Baptist. And don't assume you know what people mean by an afterlife.
I wouldn't date someone who is religious. It would be, to me, like dating someone who believed in astrology. I suppose that tars me as a doctrinaire atheist. And I suppose that kind of comment is what apo was getting in trouble for with his religious dates.
I'm not even a half-assed atheist. To my eyes, atheism requires just as big a leap of faith as theism. I don't (and likely won't ever) have enough evidence to make a determination one way or the other, but I can say this: if I was able to know definitively one way or the other, it wouldn't change a single thing in the way I live my life.
I don't really care much whether a person is religious, as long as they're very rational. Someone who is prone to illogic is anathema. And I'm afraid, to some extent, being religious is correlated with having a higher tolerance for illogic where it counts, just as astrology is more strongly correlated. But there are exceptions.
On the other hand, I'm a pretty irrational person myself in a lot of ways, and I think I can tolerate a good amount of irrationality, as long as it's conscious and there are no delusions about it. Cause let's face it--people's desires are extremely irrational. Is it wrong to go to church even if you know all the doctrine is a bunch of bullshit just because it makes you feel good to sing the hymns? It may be a bit immature, from a doctrinaire atheist's standpoint, but I know I can tolerate a bit of immaturity, because I know I have plenty of it myself.
I'm really not seeing the bother. Apo's criteria makes complete sense to me, and I couldn't date (well, marry) someone who was an atheist. As Cala said, it's an important part of a belief system, and decisions are going to be made on the basis of it - if it is wholly incomprehensible to me , why would I date (well, marry) someone for whom it was important?
Let's not write off Christian women. Many were raised that way and have never known anything else. They're often grateful to be shown the other side of life, and extremely enthusiastic too. And if you can convince them that you're Jesus, you get absolute lifetime devotion, whether you want it or not.
Others are into the sin-and-repentance cycle. They're a bit more sophisticated and jaded than the sincere ones, but still fun, and during their guilt phase they usually stay out of your hair.
I didn't say anything about those cute sailor-suit uniforms, but keep in mind that the age of consent in many states is now 18, not 12 the way it used to be. Make sure that you're working from an up-to-date edition of the Revised Statutes.
I don't know nothing about Christian guys, but something tells me, Don't go there.
Well, I might have said arational. People do have many rational desires, which are second-order desires derived from arational primary desires. (I want a relationship (primary) so I want to ask someone out (secondary).) They can also have irrational desires that are similarly derived, but derived using faulty logic. But there are a lot of desires and quirks that are pretty much arational.
Bad experience with fundamentalist Christian guys, generally; those who self-identify loudly as Christians seem to have problems with intelligent women because women are supposed to be submissive and love their husbands.
(I'm preparing the marshamallows to roast on the flames.)
I'm only an atheist because people here in the Sunny Southlands keep asking me which Baptist church I attend. I wouldn't even think about it except living here my lack of faith is rubbed rather agressively in my face on a daily basis. I'm able to refrain from talking about secular humanism for minutes- nay, hours! at a time.
There isn't anything wrong with being religious- in the ethical guidance department it's much to be preferred to astrology. As long as those moral precepts don't include the ever-popular 'you're going to hell, I'm so sorry' thing, which does tend to be disliked by the person going to hell. And yes, I know not everyone does that sort of thing.
Well, Cala said something else about the downsides of religious men, so I don't feel so bad and alone and disrespectful.
That was when I realised that the Christian gig wasn't for me- my parents' church was very big on the womanly submission. The notion that I'm supposed to be deferential and sweet and allow someone to boss me around solely because of their gender makes me want to punch someone.
I also evaluate prospective partners on the ratio of fiction to non-fiction books they own. If they have way more books with elves and swords or Space Marines on the covers than books with exciting titles like 'Race and Class in Colonial Latin America' we are probably not going to have too much to talk about.
"I don't really care much whether a person is religious, as long as they're very rational. Someone who is prone to illogic is anathema."
Same in my camp. I'm, practically speaking, an atheist, but I also have tremendous respect for many aspects of religion. How people practice, and what they believe, is closer to a sorting mechanism for me, rather than a binary one.
Most of my serious relationships have been religious to one degree or another. The two who chose to practice observant Judaism took some discussion with to clarify what I was happy to cooperate with and what I was not, but it wasn't the biggest issue in either case. The Catholic/Quaker, it wasn't an issue at all, other that in those days I would't have a Christmas tree in the house (I'm older, wiser, more tolerant now, and worry about more important things in life). Ditto the other relatees who were less religious, but were at least slightly.
Children do certainly require discussion, but they always do.
"...to some extent, being religious is correlated with having a higher tolerance for illogic...."
Rather weakly; I think I can find, for instance, more than a few Catholic and Talmudic scholars to put in evidence, not that I mean to slight other traditions. But, really, was Thomas Aquinas so illogical? Or Maimonides?
"Compare sexual fetishes."
You first.
"Let's not write off Christian women."
I'm quite sure I never have. (Are you using the C word as synonomous with "fundamentalist," or something similar?)
98: Well, I've taken to saying that my religion is Christianity, because it is. But most non-Christians expect me to tell them my denominaton--Episcopal.
The fundamentalists and the evangelicals (overlapping but not synonymous categories of people) have so taken over these terms that I feel it's important to take the term back.
I've met Hispanic girls from less well-educated families who will tell you that they are Catholic not Christian. (And BTW, I'm catholic too, just not a Roman Catholic.) They do this, because the evangelicals have appropriated the term. I doubt that the pope would say that he wasn't a Christian.
"I also evaluate prospective partners on the ratio of fiction to non-fiction books they own. "
What if they own thousands of each? (I don't any more; living through two fires and other disasters can change one from a pack-rat/collector of major standing into someone who has found a piece of his inner Boddhisatva, and some of the benefits of simplifying life. I don't recommend the method, however.)
Nice as ever to see the skiffy singled out for the mock, rather than, say, mystery or romance novels, or good/bad, of course. (Not trying to threadjack onto the there-need-not-be-a-dichotomy-between-low-and-high culture topic; we just did that one. If people didn't constantly bring it up, I wouldn't too constantly respond.)
"I also have tremendous respect for many aspects of religion."
For example, the submissiveness of women. We scorn the ancient wisdom at our cost.
For me "Christian" = "actually believing Christian" not "ethnic Christian who still occasionally goes to church". I went to church myself when my mother was alive, for her sake.
That's adorable. I'm trying to outdo mcmanus here.
I've met Hispanic girls from less well-educated families who will tell you that they are Catholic not Christian.
My sister-in-law, a practicing Catholic from Raleigh, is doing an internship in a ruralish bedroom community thereof, in an office staffed with Baptists. When she remarked offhandedly that she was Christian too, they looked at her patronizingly and said, "You're Catholic."
Oh, romance novels would be way out. Mystery novels too. I have a feeling if I say that it would only be worse if they proudly displayed a gigantic collection of role-playing books Gary will explode in wrath.
I don't mind people reading fiction of that sort (which you must admit is very generous of me), but the people who read it to the exclusion of all else tend to have these very strange ideas about katanas and feudal Japan along with it. Not so much into that, having been burned before.
if I was able to know definitively one way or the other, it wouldn't change a single thing in the way I live my life.
I bet if you knew for sure there was a god who sent people to hell for eating bacon you'd quit eating bacon. I know I would. At least I might. At least I might think about it.
My one criterion is intellectual curiosity. That pretty much covers it for me, for friends and lovers alike. Someone who is incurious is someone I barely can share the same planet with.
114: All I have to do is lose some weight and I'm in charge? Man, I've fantasized about cracking a whip into Apostropher's roasting flesh for as long as I've been an Unfogged commenter. 128 here I come!
I don't think winna's said much inflammatory; she gave a good reason, namely, 'we wouldn't have much to talk about'.
I would find a shelf full of 'Race and Class Consciousness in South Africa 1960-1990' horribly dull, and if that's all a person could talk about, I'd be bored to tears.
I think a moderate amount of sci-fi/fantasy/all-around geekiness is a pre-requisite for me, largely because I don't want to have to explain references all the time, and because sci-fi reading can be an enjoyable passtime.
Someone who thinks they would pwn in feudal Japan because they had a 20th-level monk/samurai once? Not so much.
120 - Sorry to hear that, Michael, especially now that we've established that you're legal. (Sorry about my indelicate question at the meetup, BTW. I thought I remembered you saying once that you were around L.'s age. And not that I care if minors drink, anyway. I just like to know when they are so I can enjoy corrupting them.)
Ben W, do I not also recall that marriage and children are a prerequisite to licit study of Kabbalah. If so, you have to hand it to Madonna: first class all the way.
And if apostropher is turning Madonna away from his door, then I agree with your wonderment.
When she remarked offhandedly that she was Christian too, they looked at her patronizingly and said, "You're Catholic."
That shit kills me. Why would any Catholic ever take that kind of shit from someone whose Church came into being five minutes ago. When I was growing up, my Catholic friends made fun of my "hand-me-down" religion. And it was just. When did Catholics turn into such punks?
Joe, wine can be insidious, but don't write off the third bottle prematurely! You'll just have to hydrate better next time! Anyways, good luck with the hangover. A bagel and coffee is my favorite post-party breakfast/lunch.
5) People who obsessively correct other people's grammar in person. (Online, such a trait is either cute or merely irritating. Back in the real world, I think it really should be considered grounds for justifiable bitch-slapping.)
Cala, that's really too bad. I fit all your criteria, but for being an even 6'. Unless you have some weird thing about not dating married guys. In which case it's back to trying to charm BitchPhD.
Awesome, Apo! Did you notice this: One guy told me he was "ferociously loyal"? I can't believe ogged is keeping things about his dating search from us.
The best part about that post is the anonymous commenters fiercely declaring that the writer was evil for not being serious in a personal ad, and that she may be responsible for pushing someone over the edge.
My name is the pronunciation of my given name by a three-year-old. It stuck. I don't mind- there are worse things three-year-olds can call you.
And Catholics should fight back about the Johnny-come-lately churches more often. I have been mistaken for a Catholic several times here because I would refute some of the more bizarre stories people tell about Catholicism when they think there are no Catholics in the room.
John, I'm quite sure I need not define "many" to you.
"Oh, romance novels would be way out."
Hate Pride And Prejudice, then?
"Mystery novels too."
Name of The Rose?
This is the "if it's good, it's not genre" system, unless you find that any taint of imagination, romance, or mystery is hateful in fiction.
"I have a feeling if I say that it would only be worse if they proudly displayed a gigantic collection of role-playing books Gary will explode in wrath."
No, I'm working on being less wrathful; I dislike the bloated feeling. Some of my best friends do write and create or just play RPS games, though, and they're extremely smart, literate people, I assure you. Slightly different form of activity than creating a fixed form of fiction, to be sure, as well. Not clearly more intellectually despise-worthy than playing poker, though, although I'll happily listen to the argument.
"...but the people who read it to the exclusion of all else tend to have these very strange ideas about katanas and feudal Japan along with it."
Some. And many others similar equivalents. I'm quite willing to bet that I've met about about a thousand times more idiotic, and highly limited, sf/fantasy readers than you have. (And gamers, as well.) There are few categories of aficionados that lack for such folks, and few fields of endeavor that lack for having a huge percentage of crap. Most genre fantasy, and plenty of sf, is crap.
Then there's the rest.
Equating the lowest work with what a field does at its high level may not necessarily yield the most accurate appraisal, and it may also lead one to miss lots of fascinating, compelling, thought-provoking, or at least highly entertaining work , although we're also dealing with a topic of immense subjectivity, to be sure.
Should I sometime blog my rant on Things In Personal Ads That Drive Me Crazy? It's been in the back of my head for years. It's overly clogged back there. Illiteracy comes first; use of generic statements over specifics comes next. What the fuck does one learn about someone who only says they love walks on the beach, movies, and sitting in front of the fireplace, except that they are apparently too brain-dead to either desire to or be able to differentiate themselves who can actually speak without putting you to sleep?
gary, the first part of your comment was terribly uncharitable. You presumably knew what the writer meant, so why do you need to criticize? After all, it's not substantial criticisim, but semantical. And it's a rather questionable objection, too. Calling The Name of the Rose a mystery novel isn't very accurate, because "mystery" is only a part of what the novel accomplishes, and probably not it's most important achievement.
That's fine. I didn't feel like running through a list of possibilities, since I know everyone is smart enough to simply take my point about there being a range of quality in most given categories, rather than quibble with the fact that everyone's taste varies.
I made no moral judgements about those kinds of people- I simply said I wouldn't want to date them. I think Gary is reading a lot into my comments that simply wasn't there.
"Calling The Name of the Rose a mystery novel isn't very accurate, because "mystery" is only a part of what the novel accomplishes, and probably not it's most important achievement."
And the genre aspects of any good work are merely a part of what the text accomplishes. My point. Regarding genre as taint -- pretty much another version of the "one drop" theory, save that in genre-dismissal we get the aforementioned "oh, that's good, it's not [GENRE]" exception. Which is what you're doing by ruling NOTR as non-genre.
Note: the semi-arbitrariness of how something is published is likely clearer when you've watched and participated in the sausage being made. Note: I worked as editorial assistant on the publication of Zamyatin's We both as a Bard Book (the "literary" line, very respectable packaging, no genre label) and as an Avon Book, slightly different, more genrish packaging, and "SF" on the spine. Naturally, Mirra Ginsburg (the translator) called me up and screamed at me for about this desecration of Zamyatin by claiming he was sf.
And yet books don't actually change content, or value, according to what symbol or logo the publisher chooses to put on the spine. Really.
I'm frequently uncharitable about people mocking genres, and most particularly sf/fantasy, simply for being genres, and for referring to them as if they only consisted of their worst examples; this is perhaps sad, but it's true. Don't insult my field, and many of my lifelong, or former, friends and colleagues, and I won't bridle.
Catherine won't date a guy unless he's over four inches taller than she is? That seems weird (and yes, the notion that at 5' 10.5" I'm a "shorty" does offend me slightly).
Is there any point in pointing out that winna just said she didn't want to date someone who had "way more" fantasy / sf than serious nonfiction books, and didn't actually mock genre fiction?
I mean, I know there isn't. But I'm doing it, anyway.
That's whom you may want to sleep with, but not necessarily attempt commiting with. If that's what you're looking for.
Based on my quite limited sampling (I've yet to ever answer or publish a personal ad, although I've drafted a couple in the distant past, and may violate that history in the coming year; maybe), I find interesting sociological differences between the sorts of different personal ads one finds at different sites.
For instance, London Review Of Books and HotOrNot: not so much in common. (Although suddenly I wish to see an experimental switching of some ads from one to the other, and check the results.)
Well, I've obviously no insight into what sets Catherine's boat afloat, but from personal experience, I can propose the following: when slow dancing, a 4-5 inch height difference is pretty much optimal for fitting together perfectly. Also, a third breast in the middle of the back is nice, but you don't run into that so often.
Gary, I don't remember anyone insulting a particular genre. People have expressed intolerance with fanatical-levels of obsession with genre. This is the problem with being an uncharitable reader; i.e. missing what other people are actually saying. It's kinda like you have PTSD with scifinerd-mockage.
Incidentally, I used to think "romance novels" were all crap, too, until I started working with with major romance editors, and learned that it was more complicated than that.
Among other typos/errors in 158 were that the second "Note:" should have been "Example:" and I was trying to say that Mirra Ginsburg screamed at me for about 20 minutes for our desecration of Zamyatin by slandering his work with the label of "sf."
Okay, back to whom we'd date/not-date, and personal ads, and the like. I'd also advise serious daters to under-rate themselves in descriptions, if they're looking for a long-term relationship. Better to be pleasantly surprised when you inevitably discover reality than bitter and pissed. My theory, anyway.
Not only was I raised in a Southern Baptist household, I was born in Baptist Memorial Hospital (Louisville, KY) while my dad was in Baptist seminary, on his way to becoming a Baptist minister of music. I dated several Protestants, but ended up marrying Orthodox and Catholic. I'm currently taking auditions for Jews and Mormons, in case this one doesn't work out.
I'm about 5'5'', and head-shoulder snuggle ratio works best around 5'10''.
I don't know why it seems that sci-fi types are more aggressive in defending their turf, winna; perhaps it's due to playground bullies or similar childhood trauma. But I've never heard a fan of romance novels charge up if someone jokingly derides their plots and start screeching about Austen or medieval poetry and how THAT IS ROMANCE TOO in quite the way that an offhand remark about, say, why David Eddings sucks sets off a sci-fi/fantasy fan. Maybe because it's more of a niche (though I'm not sure I buy that.)
"I also evaluate prospective partners on the ratio of fiction to non-fiction books they own."
I'm baffled by the implication that only reading fiction equals being vapid. People who almost only read nonfiction woul be, what, businessmen and the like? For me it would signal that your'e *not* very intellectual.
Are you generally uninterested in artistic pursuits? Music, film?
Oh, and Gary's right about underestimating one's appearance; I think I've said this before, but one of my friend's sole comment on an evening out with an Internet date was '5'1'' and 180 pounds is not an average build.'
1) The retarded. I have trouble imagining myself becoming one of those people who takes a lot of joy in the really simple things.
2) The unintrospective.
3) People who would put vegetarians on a list of people they wouldn't date.
4) The incurious.
5) More racist/sexist/homophobic than the visceral stuff that's hard to shed.
6) No one who would lose his hard-on after seeing me give birth (and this can be taken as a stand-in for a constellation of attitudes about the body and its functions. Similarly, if you think you would not want to fuck me if I let my body hair all grow in, I don't want to date you.)
7) Triple and quadruple amputees. I would date up to a double amputee.
8) Substantially smaller than me on multiple dimensions. A little shorter could be compensated for by breadth, skinniness can be compensated for by height.
9) I have trouble imagining the path by which I'd sleep with someone who voted for Bush twice.
10) Fundies. Fundie atheists would be okay as long as they weren't really dumb about it. I would date someone who vehemently believed that believing in god in this day and age was a failure of some sort, as long as they knew when to keep their mouth shut. I mean, Salman Rushdie is kind of an evangelical atheist. I probably wouldn't date him for other reasons, though.
11) People with an inexpressive affect.
12) People who think vulgarity is an unattractive quality. More broadly, anyone whose sensibilities are easily shocked, by behavior, life history, etc.
13) People who would say, "I just don't care about politics."
14) People with a really eclipsing monomania, like Cala said. That was a good one.
15) People who are freaked out by hysterical giggling. More broadly, people who are freaked out by extreme displays of emotions of all kinds.
16) No one who is really into their possessions qua status symbols.
17) No one who acts like I shouldn't sing because I can't sing well.
18) Although as it turns out reading isn't necessarily an essential, I'd still include an interest in/appreciation for words. Under the right circumstances, I'd date someone who couldn't read who had this quality.
20) Someone who keeps kosher/halal, unless they keep some kind of more expansive eco-kosher, or, in talking about it, acknowledge that it's kind of stupid but they just aren't ready to give up the tradition of their ancestors.
Hey, this is kinda fun. It makes me feel powerful.
Conversation has to have some common ground, yes? And if all someone has on their shelves are books about subjects I'm not very interested in, odds are good we're not going to go great guns in the talking department.
I'm glad that not only am I somehow a snob, I'm also not an intellectual (a thing I never claimed to be, anyway, I'm just a person with a fondness for dull books). I think this is the first time I've ever been called both in the space of twenty minutes!
Thank you, everyone, for allowing me to achieve this goal. I'd like to thank the academy, my peers, and Arthur C. Clarke.
It doesn't seem extremely unfair to say that Winna seems to have somewhat categorical opinions of people. Seems, mind you, but I don't think Farber is being oversensitive, for once.
I am, however, extremely tolerant of people who have trouble numbering lists and keeping the items on them expressed in a form consistent with the others.
"...can propose the following: when slow dancing, a 4-5 inch height difference is pretty much optimal for fitting together perfectly."
I find that it makes no difference when horizontal, however. We all have priorities.
165: "Gary, I don't remember anyone insulting a particular genre."
101: "If they have way more books with elves and swords or Space Marines on the covers than books with exciting titles like 'Race and Class in Colonial Latin America' we are probably not going to have too much to talk about."
Now, obviously I wasn't trying to say Winna isn't perfectly entitled to her preferences. But I'm unclear that that was precisely a balanced view of the genre, rather than an implication that books with those genre tags on the covers -- and don't get me started about how genre symbols on covers come about, the arbitrary nature of it, and the horrible covers many fine works get (and great covers much crap gets), because that's far more complex than mere logos; it's purely simple signifiers, though -- are , per se, crap. I'll show you covers for Ursula Le Guin, or a hundred other writers of similar quality with elves and shit on their covers.
"It's kinda like you have PTSD with scifinerd-mockage."
It's also kinda like I run into the dismissals/stereotypes every single day. We all live in different worlds, even when they overlap. I read reviews and commentary on sf, along with a hundred other topics, almost every day, including from those who use such shorthand to dimiss genres (though rarely mysteries, unlike during the early/middle 20th century, when it was almost as disreputable as sf). So while the sensitivity started in childhood days, it's not just a bizarre, neurotic, not-from-these-times reaction. You can check with most people who work in the field on this, if you doubt my word and perception.
I'm now officially trying to drop this subject, though, unless many others are deeply fascinated, because I doubt many are, and, as I said, we just ran through much of this a week or so ago when RAH came up.
I am, however, extremely tolerant of people who have trouble numbering lists and keeping the items on them expressed in a form consistent with the others.
Too bad you included #3, Tia, or I'd still be on your potential list. Well, depending on how strictly you interpret #1.
I have lots and lots of vegetarian friends, by the way. It's just that dating (for me) has generally meant lots of cooking together, and radically different diets gets to be a pain eventually. In college, I dated a woman for a brief time who really hated vegetables in almost every form and it was equally annoying.
Good lord, wasn't the point of this silly-ass list making thing to roughly define broad categories?
What the hell is wrong with saying, "I've found that I don't have a lot in common with serious science fiction fans and prefer readers of dull books' that isn't also wrong with 'God, I don't like Russian chicks', or 'Chicks who wear heels are high maintenance and unlikely to be the sort of down-to-earth gal I like.' or 'I want to date a woman who likes camping and is outdoorsy, but wouldn't expect me to accompany her.'
Catherine won't date a guy unless he's over four inches taller than she is? That seems weird (and yes, the notion that at 5' 10.5" I'm a "shorty" does offend me slightly).
well that's not short; just shorter than i personally would like. i guess i say 6'1" abritrarily because that's what tommy happens to be (though i did think he was a bit taller) and it seems like a pretty perfect height for me. and also i like to wear the dreaded heels once in a while so i need somebody with a few inches on me.
"...But I've never heard a fan of romance novels charge up...."
Oh, good lord, go talk to any romance writer, or got to a Romantic Times convention.
Skiffy fans have nothing on romance people for defensiveness; they're a much younger genre, and even less respected by those who aren't fans of their genre.
I'd not hold David Eddings out as an exemplar of anything but how to write commercially successful fiction, myself, although in fairness I've not read anything by him since I was last paid to, about twenty years ago.
I think David Eddings's works make excellent tinder. But unfortunately, that's the sort of stuff most people think of when they think sci-fi/fantasy (and, given his commercial success, probably what a lot of people mean when they say, 'Oh, I like fantasy novels.')
"People who almost only read nonfiction woul be, what, businessmen and the like?"
I don't fathom that; in my very limited experience with business books, most "businessmen" -- and this is a Vast Generalization, of course -- read little but "business" books, if that. (There are, of course, endless exceptions.)
Whereas most folks in my personal world of friends and acquaintances reads endless history, science, commentary, essays, and on an infinity of nonfiction topics, although, as usual, everyone has their own personal preferences and tastes and distastes, and I know some folks who either read little fiction or little nonfiction, who are nonetheless generally bright.
I have a bit of trouble understanding/empathizing with the more narrow-minded readers, but, fortunately, they don't have to follow my preferences, either. (I've also had an acquaintance or two explain how incredibly boring history, or science, or politics, or any and every given nonfiction topic is; a bit irritating, that -- not their personal preference, but their insistence this was a universal truth.)
Has anyone on this thread called anyone a name? I missed that, but I've been having another inexplicably woozy morning.
"7) Triple and quadruple amputees. I would date up to a double amputee."
I also recommend avoiding men who either stole Hitler's Brain, or have had an additional head added. It helps attractiveness less than they say.
185: I've always hated sci-fi, myself. 187: yes.
188: I have faith that Ogged's and my love is true and ever-lasting. I always feel that way, right up until I'm dumped. (Warning: statement may not be literally true.)
There have always been discussions and debates in the sf community as to the wisdom and workability of mixed marriages, though there are, of course, innumerable examples of sucesses. Thus, death to close-mindedness by any of us.
Mental illness would be on my list, now. Dated a mild schizophrenic for a while, and someone with moderately severe bipolar disorder. It's tough to deal with.
Mental illness would be on my list, now. Dated a mild schizophrenic for a while, and someone with moderately severe bipolar disorder. It's tough to deal with.
"Pervert, by the way, is pretty much my number one inclusion criterion."
Does flavor (or do you prefer "flavour"?) matter? Or how narrow-minded they are?
I'd like to self-contradictorily note that, aside from a single reference, I said nothing more about either "short" or "fat," although the first also goes back to childhood, and is not a matter of choice. Because we, indeed, are all entitled to our preferences, as this blog has touched on regarding the "who I'm attracted to" topic, many times. And life, they tell me, is unfair.
However, while I'm just fine with women with unshaven body hair of varying sorts -- depending upon the individual, of course, but history offers witnesses to my assertion -- and I'm fully with the "let's kick-drop men who lose interest in sex after their love's childbirth, the thought of comparing and contrasting prejudices against involuntary and voluntary conditions in The Other does occur to me. Essentially the same thing, or not? Any thoughts? Or is it all just "we have no control over our preferences"?
180: As much as it pains me to say it (because he is a handsome and charming young man), in spite of our mutual affinity for disorganized lists, I would be off Michael's list at 9, 11, and sometimes 17, and my impression is he would be off mine at 6.
That ban against people who chew with their mouths open also includes gum. I can't respect people who chew gum. I have no idea why. Perhaps it's the bovine look of contentment as their jaws work.
It is a continual source of wonder to me that I haven't had a date in four years.
201: Having dated no men, I can't overgeneralize anything about them into an offensive exclusion criterion. But I'll back you up: the only thing worse than finding yourself in a relationship with a mentally ill person is trying to end that relationship. The sense-of-responsibility vs. self-protection struggle turns an already heartbreaking situation into a soul-wrenching one.
Sometimes when I'm at home and relaxed, I chew with my mouth a little bit open. Not so open you can see the food, but apparently it makes my chewing loud. My boyfriend says it's the only thing he doesn't love about me.
That drives me crazy. I have a prejudice against gum-chewing, as well. I don't mind smokers terribly, though, even though I've nevr smoked tobacco (save for the two or so experiments to see what I was missing).
If anyone ever starts rubbing ballons together in front of me, I will seriously kill you. Or want to, and I'll leave the room immediately, thinking passionately hateful thoughts.
The open-mouth chewing is far more common, however. It's not as if there's anything to say about it to someone, is there? (Someone who isn't a child.)
205: Do you rule out all mentally ill people? An awful lot of people have suffered from serious depression. One guy at Harvard, Ronald Kessler, thinks that something like 50% of the population has suffered a psychiatric illness over the course of a lifetime.
Mentally ill people who won't deal with their illnesses are awful, but people who seek treatment from psychiatrists shouldn't be shunned: they're just being responsible and proactive.
I've known too many people who 'wouldn't have married her if I had known depression was in her family tree' or 'we were engaged, but we broke it off when he was depressed' that it seems that for some, at least, depression is as much a turn-off as any other mental illness.
the only thing worse than finding yourself in a relationship with a mentally ill person is trying to end that relationship.
a totally wretched experience. took me years to get over the whole horrorshow. my insane ex, however, immediately went back to an old girlfriend, found a medication that actually worked for him, and won a big fat literary prize. however, he's still impossible, so I regret nothing.
"I read a study once that looked at rates of mental illness in various professions. Poets were at the top of the list (something like 50%, IIRC)."
My personal, totally anecdotal observation/suspicion, is that psychiatrists and psychologies are high on that list. I came to this conclusion while in single-digit age, observing my parents and their peers, who tended to largely be of that milieu; my theory around age 7 or so was that people tend to go into professions because of what worried them early on.
As observations go, it's likely not worth more than that sort of childish generalizing. Or is it?
When I wrote about gum-chewing, no one else had mentioned it here, but I actually am also reading and writing stuff elsewhere, as usual.
I'm not as concerned about seeing the food being chewed, since simply hearing it will make me irrational. Whereas I couldn't care less what I hear of any other bodily functions; I have no explanation. I'm sure Freud would.
If I felt like being serious, I'd agree with Apo in 205.
211: Seriously though, if they've already dealt with it and it's very much under control, then maybe. But having been through it twice, I would not willing to put myself through it again. The second time was while I was a single parent of a kid old enough to know what was going on and as a result, let me just add: hell no. Never again.
psychiatrists and psychologies are high on that list
After ten years in the ministry, my father decided he really fucking hated it and went to medical school at Duke, ending up in psychiatry. Through my adolescence, many of our family friends were in the profession, naturally. I'll back up your suspicion and were my father still alive, he would as well.
I can't date people who smell weird. I can't describe it exactly. It's not normal body odor as it's too medicinal, but I can't identify the chemical.
To the larger question: I think desires are under some voluntary control (at least deciding to hate something is possible, though I'm not as convinced about choosing to love it), but quite a lot of the time, it's not worth the effort to change them. I prefer medium-height guys; I'm sure if I trained myself to love both the short and the tall I would be a better person, maybe, but who the hell cares?
The psychiatrist/psychologists I've known in private life have mostly ranged from disagreeably eccentric to batshit crazy. It may begin in childhood, but I think some of it's a result of dealing with people's craziness all day.
bg, I guess I really only mean more severe mental illness. Depression is fine (I'd be hypocritical if that was an automatic disqualifier), though only at the more mild levels. I'm not by any means dismissing anyone who's seen a psychiatrist. This is meant to apply to those relationships where I spend more time as a therapist than as a boyfriend.
They have to be self-confident though. No people with serious self-esteem problems are worth putting up with. (I'm not sure; aren't those pretty easy to solve though, compared to other disorders?)
I imagine I'd agree; I've simply never had the experience. I've always adored the way my sweeties smelled uniquely as they do. But smell being what it is, most other smells on them would, I'm sure, be awful. (On the flip side, along with all my other bodily traits, I sweat heavily; I do, however, shower as many times a day as available and necessary. TMI now, I expect.)
"To the larger question: I think desires are under some voluntary control (at least deciding to hate something is possible, though I'm not as convinced about choosing to love it), but quite a lot of the time, it's not worth the effort to change them."
I'd agree with that. As I said last time the topic went by here, I believe that control-over-desire is, like much of life, a continuum, not a binary thing, and as usual, different for each individual. But I'm still interested in the opinions of others, and not just the sound of my own voice (believe it or not).
"...from disagreeably eccentric to batshit crazy. It may begin in childhood...."
Or it could also develop in college days or so, or later in life, to be sure. As I indicated, kinda a non-small generalization I was making. I'd like to hope there are, at the least, plenty of exceptions, and I do believe the number that there are is non-trivial. It can also be mainly about caring for other people. I theorize.
"...I'm sure if I trained myself to love both the short and the tall I would be a better person, maybe, but who the hell cares?"
Short and tall guys attracted to and interested in you, but, no, there's no more or less reason for you to care than for any of us to care to change our particular set of this-attracts/this-repels me criteria. (Or is there?) This may possibly not be an argument that works well in conjunction with the "fat is beautiful" or anti-"lookists" movements, and similar outlooks, of course, but, again, if it's not relevant to one's self, it's not. (It might, possibly be inconsistent with ever complaining that someone wasn't attracted to one's self based upon one's looks, perhaps.)
I gave up doing worse than sighing over women who were not attracted to me solely because I was 5' 4" somewhere not long after around the time I finally popped up there. Besides, in those days, and for many to come, it's not as if I didn't have plenty of attractive fascinating women throwing themselves at me. "Your loss" became my major attitude.
I think the biggest reason to try to be less picky about appearance is so that you can afford to be more picky about other things. (Of course, that cuts both ways.)
books with exciting titles like 'Race and Class in Colonial Latin America'
Among a lot of my friends, having books like this could be considered hott. But it could also disqualify by reasoning along the lines of Cala's 1 a, b, and c.
Joe O, cool article up until the advice to ensure perfect compatibility by testing the smell purely (sans Pill, sans perfume)... I mean, if the theory is that the pill makes women prefer different odors because it mimics pregnancy, then shouldn't it be a good idea to take the pill to see if you'll like him over the long haul?
There are a number of MHC profiles none of which can become dominant even within relatively small groups because it is better to have a mix of profiles than two copies of the same profile. Your relatives will have similar MHC profiles and thus will smell funny. People of the same racial classification will have a mix of MHC profiles and thus won't, in general, smell funny.
"So the more related you are genetically/racially, the closer your MHC profile, right?"
I suspect it's more complicated, since one can share any number of genes -- well, a large number -- and not share another large number. But I'm just guessing.
Why does my ID fields' data keep randomly disappearing since this morning?
I think the advice is given to avoid this problem:
>Doctors have known since the mid-1980s that couples suffering repeated spontaneous abortions tend to share more of their MHC than couples for whom pregnancies are carried to term. And even when MHC-similar couples do successfully bring a pregnancy to term, their babies are often underweight.
Sure, but.... I'm trying to imagine it as a reason for a break-up, ya know? Intelligent, attractive, educated, responsible, but I went off the pill for a while so would you mind showering and wearing these clothes I washed in non-scented detergent so I can see if we're smell-compatible so we don't have miscarriages?
apo, right you are about already having dealt with the religion issue. You're just going to have to stop trying to get in the good graces of Dr. B, though, as she's taken antidepressants.
I think that pdf criticized those who laxk self-confidence. I think that Dr. B could hardly be criticized for that.
"However, while I'm just fine with women with unshaven body hair of varying sorts "
Does that include women with back hair & beards?
Gary has said he needs to update the picture at his site, but I'll still bet I look more like Gimli than he does.
The emphasis on intellectual curiousity seems misguided. My lady, an unmarried committment if you must know, pretty much reads and watches only stories in which bunches of people get killed. She reads a lot, Clive Cussler and Dean Koontz and the like. She watches stuff like "Lost", "Nip & Tuck", "Desperate Housewifes" and a half-dozen other series. She avoids the news and current events as much as possible. She listens to top 40 and broadway showtunes. An IQ around 140, she just doesn't want to work at her play.
I like that in her. A lot. It helps me laugh at my own intellectual pretensions and worship of bullshit and useless knowledge. Worried about and researching exchange rates and Iranian politics and the legality of wiretapping? Trying to follow the posts at The Valve or Kotsko's? Learning about a new type of music every week? Watching "Dogville" ten times?
She keeps me honest and humble. Or at least makes me pretend I am, which will work sometimes.
The emphasis on intellectual curiousity seems misguided.
Wait...are you telling me that I'm not attracted to the kind of woman I'm attracted to? Or are you just saying that I shouldn't be, and should perhaps switch to the template that's more to your liking?
Apo really does up the "more Baptist than thou" thing!
Well, aside from the whole "haven't darkened a church door in years" thing. But Smasher and I are both obviously running away from it with a suspicious eye cast over our shoulders.
bg: right, right, B's off the list (but then "women with kids" was #9 on my original list, so it was all just a harmless flirt from the get-go). I guess it's back to the Mineshaft after all. Ogged? Labs? 9:00?
"Does that include women with back hair & beards?"
It's not my intention to give an itemized list. For one thing, as I said, it depends upon the individual, and how the package works. But "varying sorts" excludes as well as includes. (One sweetie had the cutest almost translucently red hair on her legs; along with the rest of the redhead package, it was a turn-on; under-arm hair similarly may be perfectly delightful; probably not if were four feet long, though; It Just Depends; which means I don't exclude hair categorically, just as I'm fairly broad-minded -- damn that phrase coming up in these contexts -- about either not rejecting categorically a number of attributes I may reject in specific.)
See, already vastly TMI. I am weak. So so very weak.
"She keeps me honest and humble."
I tried to make a point about "complementary" in 78 above.
"Wait...are you telling me that I'm not attracted to the kind of woman I'm attracted to?"
I think Bob was merely trying to suggest that sometimes both people, and what they can do for us, can surprise us. But I've been known to take a hostile read when I shouldn't, myself.
"...but then "women with kids" was #9 on my original list...."
I wound up a demi-semi-hemi-pseudo parental unit, live-in brand, for a year, via not having it on my list. Although were you rejecting polygamy/polyamory?
I find Depends to be a turnoff, but if it's your kink, then run with it.
were you rejecting polygamy/polyamory?
For myself, yes. I think it's a valid lifestyle choice, but based on my (admittedly limited) observations, the number of folks truly emotionally equipped to pull it off successfully wouldn't fill a high school gym.
Oh, I am a teetotaler for the next ten days! Lawd, give me strength!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 7:37 PM
Oh, and Ogged, Tom whips up badass homemade spiked eggnog and hot chocolate. Just give up.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 7:40 PM
tommy, i believe, is 6'2". his enormous head probably helps his height. (i love you honey!)
Posted by catherine | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 7:51 PM
What else has he lied to her about?
He's a vegetarian behind her back.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 7:55 PM
8. conservatives (though i have to admit i'd probably be willing to bend on this a little bit if the person in question were an extremely moderate conservative)
For some reason I read this as, "(though I have to admit I'd probably be willing to bend on this a little bit if the person in question were an extremely hott conservative)"
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 7:58 PM
also, apo, i have to say i took offense to you not liking capricorns in your original list. what about us puts you off?
Posted by catherine | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 7:58 PM
jeremy - well, that too. i mean, probably anything on that list would vanish if the person in question were extremely hott.
Posted by catherine | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 8:00 PM
Catherine, all the ones I've known have been busy, busy people and living with one would make me tired.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 8:11 PM
I wouldn't even bother making a list like this, because the first, most fundamental, most intuitive characteristic I would put on a list to reject I've already accepted twice, and that is: doesn't read for pleasure. So it's obvious I don't really have a list.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 8:44 PM
9, meet 7.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 8:50 PM
Ahem.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 8:52 PM
Well, Becks, maybe I should have listened/be listening to you and John Waters. The first little relationship basically ended with my internal narrative going thus: "Ohmygodgetthatthingawayfrommeiamsomuchsmarterthanyouicanhardlystandtolookatitmuchless" so maybe I should be making and following my list. (My internal narrative probably would have started that way too, but since the relationship was conducted in my second language and his first, I managed to trick myself for awhile. He was hott though.) But the second one has more to do with ADD/dyslexia/a lot of competing priorities for someone who has a lot to do that is difficult for him.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 9:10 PM
(Not a BF, but...) I had a roommate once who didn't read and she ended up going batshit insane and moving out in the middle of the night without telling me she was leaving. I thought not owning any books was suspect when she moved in but that experience confirmed my belief of not reading = red flag.
Totally irrational prejudice but, hey, it's worked for me.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 9:30 PM
Totally irrational prejudice
Or highly effective filtering mechanism. Take your pick. You and John Waters are spot on.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 9:33 PM
So, I just reread apostropher's list. What's wrong with religion? I go to church, but I can make fun of the priest with the best of them. And good vicars have wonderful senses of humor--especially the clever ones.
Doctrinaire atheists are almost as bad as the fundagelicals.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 9:47 PM
correction: tommy is 6'1". phew. just made it.
Posted by catherine | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 9:48 PM
To the vicar go the spoils.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 9:52 PM
If I don't get banned at some point, my jokes are going to get worse and worse.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 10:29 PM
They can't get much worse than mine, and I haven't been banned.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 10:56 PM
Ben makes a fair point.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 10:57 PM
Fine. The only thing worse than being banned is not being banned.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 11:01 PM
The religion thing Bostonian girl mentions strikes me as weird as well. If these lists are meant to capture attributes which corelate with people you are unlikely to have a good relationship with, then fine. That's just an empirical finding. If one reads these lists as enumerations of sufficient conditions for not wanting to date someone -- which is what they seem to be -- then certain kinds of anti-religious feeling seems undermotivated. It seems particularly undermotivated when the person "ruling out" religion in a mate doesn't seem to care much about religion one way or another. If it's not a big deal to you, why should you care that your honey has a tasteful shrine to Cthulhu in the corner? Some possible motivations include:
1. I want to share in everything my mate finds important. If s/he finds religion important, I can't share that. [Criticism: No who's being naive? You will never share in everything your mate considers important. Having this as a requirement for love defines the practice of making the best the enemy of the good, and seems as good a recipe as any for dying alone after spurning lots of lovely people who would have made you happy.]
2. Religion is ipso facto stupid to believe in, and I don't want to date stupid people. [Criticism: No, it really isn't.]
3. I don't want to spend my Sundays/Saturdays/Birthday of Moloch in some boring service. [Criticism: my friend, even if you date Richard Dawkin's #1 fan, you are going to spend more time than you can imagine doing boring things with your honey that s/he does not find boring. See reference to naivete above.]
4. In fact, belief in religion is not a sufficient "no date" factor, but rather correlates highly with "no date" profiles. [Criticism: none a priori, as I suggested above. As an empiraical proposition, however, it seems dubious.]
What other options are there?
Apostropher, I'd love to know, why do you insist on driving Kabblah-toting starlets away from your door?
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 11:19 PM
Catherine mentioned no objection to massive amounts of back hair, so I guess fashion have changed, and I might have a chance, if I lose thirty pounds and grow ten inches.
Umm, in height, you perverts
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 11:21 PM
I think that, just as "no conservatives" automatically comes with the exception "unless the conservative is very moderate or very hot", so too "no religious people" automatically comes with "unless the religionist is Pascal or very hot".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 11:23 PM
"hott", surely.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 11:26 PM
Apostropher, I'd love to know, why do you insist on driving Kabblah-toting starlets away from your door?
Starlets, being young, demonstrate, ipso facto, insincerity in their beliefs when they discuss matters kabbalistic, since one is supposed to be at least forty and have a thorough command of the Talmud (and, one presumes, the Torah) before reading kabbalistic texts. So maybe that's the reason, or indicative of a reason.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 11:26 PM
baa, apostropher's answer in the original thread was
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 11:27 PM
Religious differences make big trouble as / when kids enter the picture. Much bigger trouble than, e.g., s/he likes Mondrian and I don't.
Thinking about kids is, I know, a long way from simply dating, but it seems worth mentioning; religion is more than a matter of tastes and activities.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 11:28 PM
Religions do not constitute reasonable comprehensive doctrines, thus, they will have no place in my achievable utopia. I couldn't bear to part from my loved ones for that reason, so I steel my heart.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 11:29 PM
A good friend of mine has a mother who's a devout Christian and a father who's a devout Muslim. She was raised in both religions, and was allowed to choose when she got old enough. She chose Christianity, though she now observes Ramadan.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 11:31 PM
30: Well, fair enough. I should more carefully have said, "religious differences often make big trouble" etc.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 11:34 PM
What's wrong with religion?
No more than is wrong with vegetarianism or Capricorns, which is to say nothing in and of itself. Just not compatible with me. I wasn't warned this had to be logical. Also, the important modifier there was "devout."
And good vicars have wonderful senses of humor
Yeah, but vicars rank very low on my dateability scale.
Doctrinaire atheists are almost as bad as the fundagelicals.
Absolutely. Often worse.
why do you insist on driving Kabblah-toting starlets away from your door?
It's my wife that keeps driving them away. I'd be open to letting them stay the night.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-28-05 11:51 PM
>just make fun of it entirely too often to have that in a dating relationship.
My wife makes fun of what I hold dear all the time. Is this not usual?
* * *
Ben W, do I not also recall that marriage and children are a prerequisite to licit study of Kabbalah. If so, you have to hand it to Madonna: first class all the way.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:15 AM
No one wonders about the condition ruling out all of these fine people?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:29 AM
Ben W, do I not also recall that marriage and children are a prerequisite to licit study of Kabbalah. If so, you have to hand it to Madonna: first class all the way.
I believe being Jewish is also an implied prerequisite. Male, too, probably. So you can see why the rabbis are unimpressed.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:31 AM
No one wonders about the condition ruling out all of these fine people?
I'm seeing Ashcroft, Bush, Falwell, Orrin Hatch, Mel Gibson, John Mayer, Bill O'Reilly, Putin and Trump. Seems like an okay criterion to me.
(Although Carry Nation is teh hott.)
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:40 AM
My wife makes fun of what I hold dear all the time
I 'd have no problem with that; I make fun of what I hold dear. It's the other direction that I've had it create trouble. Look baa, all the reasonableness and logic in the world won't dissuade me. If a squeaky voice passes muster as an exclusion criterion, then surely deeply held, orthogonal belief systems clear the bar.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:41 AM
You're being irrational.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:42 AM
See Ogged, you I'd date.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:44 AM
I'm having trouble with the concept of a doctrinate atheist. This may be an error on my part. I'm too used to thinking of "doctrine" as a complex set of rules, guidelines, and beliefs. Atheism hasn't any positive content, but is simply a refutation. Ok, I could see it having one positive content, which is the requirement of empirical evidence in order for their to be belief. Still, this is far, far different from what we think of as doctrine when we think of religious doctrine. Perhaps you're thinking of evangelical atheists? I readily grant such people can be annoying.
Anyway, Apostropher dodged the bullet; I'm going to step right into its path. I'm not evangelical, excepting the possibility that I would be choosing to live with this person. I would question and prod. I would be so damn annoying. Why? I do not accept religious beliefs. But, more, truth be told, I'm scornful of them. I cannot respect them. Pascal? Please. Do I need to trot out a list of the geniuses of history holding absolutely wack beliefs? You know as well as I that it would be a long list. Besides, Pascal lived before Hume and Darwin - among the first thinkers to give us glimpses that matter does indeed organize itself. I have little doubt that I would have been devoutly, likely even arrogantly, religious at such a time. But I don't today see any good reason to believe in omnipotence. Not a single reason. On the other hand, I think there are very good reasons not to.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:46 AM
Someday, inshallah.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:46 AM
Damn it, Michael.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:47 AM
What? There's too much comity around here.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:51 AM
You ruined my 41. Anyway, I have the opposite problem: I can't take people who dismiss religion very seriously, despite not being religious myself. You should think about what it is in the lives of its most noble practitioners, not about what your stupid neighbors do. And I'm going to bed, so don't you go arguing with me.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:54 AM
Besides, I AM DRINKING VIRGIN EGGNOG! I have whisky, rum and beer, but CAN'T DRINK IT. This next week and a half, I AM GOING TO MAKE GARY FARBER LOOK LIKE A PUPPY DOG.
I suppose I should add that, strictly speaking, I am agnostic. I am also, strictly speaking, agnostic as to the existence of unicorns and leprechauns. I still do not respect the beliefs of those who believe in such.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:56 AM
You should think about what it is in the lives of its most noble practitioners, not about what your stupid neighbors do.
If I understand this, I think I accept it. I'm quite interested in, say, the Jeffersonian Bible. It's not that I abhor everything religious holds sacred. I'm willing to think and talk about what religions have to say, but outside of their rule structure.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:01 AM
And I'm going to bed
This is some Muslim thing, isn't it?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:05 AM
inshallah...in bed....at the mineshaft.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:07 AM
I think "doctrinate atheist" (sic) means someone who is totally convinced that there is no God (not just unconvinced that there is one) and holds to that belief just as fervently as the pious hold to religion. That is, explicitly not agnostic but more like the polar opposite of devout. I suppose they can either evangelize or not.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:16 AM
I'm still hoping Ken Jennings will take me as one of his wives, so I'd better relax the no-teetotaler requirement I was considering.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:49 AM
I am a doctrinaire atheist. Like Dr Feynmann, if asked about the need for meaning and purpose in the universe, I answer "Why?." Not militant, and I find the blithely irreligious quite interesting.
I also sometimes think I am going to go to hell, partly for lying in blog comments.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 2:31 AM
Are these absolutes? I'm short and fat and don't like pop culture or idie rock, but I'm extremely not a teetotaler, a conservative, a vegetarian, or religious, and I'm a fanatical blogger. Do extra credit points cancel out spome of the zeros?
I mean -- BOY! Am I not a teetotaler!
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 5:17 AM
i don't get it - you can rule people out based on their genes and where they were born (i noticed that in the thread from ogged's list, none of you are allowed to date me because i am genetically short and blonde -- and several of you even went so far as to agree that i am probably a nutcase based on this -- although, if i get fat, everything will be okay again) but you argue about whether it might be narrow-minded to rule them out based on religion???
it's okay, i'm planning to find a medium-sized, pesca-vege-tarian, eggnog-drinking danish or swedish man who is not a vicar, knows Pascal, and will read the zohar out loud to me at bedtime for my next boyfriend. eep.
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 5:44 AM
mmf! - I'm willing to let anybody rule anybody else out for any reason. And I'm saying that mostly because now that I know you're thin and blonde, I'm being very, very careful not to say anything that might set you off.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 5:56 AM
no, it's okay apostropher. it's more interesting when people say what they think.
in a moment of earnestness, i would point out that saying "i don't date x type of people" is different from saying "x type of people are always this way."
after all, apostropher, i'm thin and blonde - if you're not careful, you might set me off!
NUTCASE ALERT - RUN FOR THE HILLS!
no no, back to chatting.
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 6:28 AM
in a moment of earnestness
I don't think that's allowed.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 6:41 AM
after all, apostropher, i'm thin and blonde
But wait, it was thin, pretty blondes, so AFAIK you could still be perfectly sane. [Oh God, she's gonna snap and turn violent. Think fast, think fast...] Or you might fall under the "almost always" exception that I listed originally.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 7:12 AM
For the record, I'm 6'1". AWFULLY convenient how I just barely fit in under the bar, isn't it? I'm wondering what other criteria Catherine has lowered or dropped so that she can slum it with me.
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 7:26 AM
OK, much worse than all of this religiosity or lack thereof talk, I cannot talk to (once it's brought up), let alone date, anyone who talks about astrology as if it's at all meaningful. I have in fact walked out of rooms in order to avoid insulting people I don't know to their faces when this comes up.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 7:30 AM
No one smarter than me. No one dumber than me. No one hotter than me. No one uglier than me. No one who does not share my tastes in food, humor, music, and politics. Above all no one who is too much like me.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 7:31 AM
slolernr in 28 makes the main point about religion that would bother me, and it has to do with having children. that's just not the way i envision raising my child, and if i marry somebody who is religious, i imagine it becoming a pretty contentious point. but overall i wouldn't be against somebody who is somewhat religious but just not very observant about it, or very casual about it. shrug. but i like i said, if they're hott, then all bets are off. cause then i could have pretty children.
Posted by catherine | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 7:32 AM
Washerdreyer -- Talking seriously about astrology (and other aspects of the occult) can be quite useful as an adjunct to marihuana.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 7:33 AM
44: Thanks ogged. I think that this is an important point.
27: I saw apo's original answer and thought that it was an inadequate response. (I don't mean to judge him, and since he's married it's a moo (sic) point.) One can be quite religious without being pious or terribly devout, without taking oneself or one's religion too seriously.
I'm perfectly willing to make fun of my own religion or have others make fun of it. Parts of it are ridiculous. I'd probably just smile a bit. I might get annoyed by someone who chose to persist in making ignorant statements--and that could cause trouble with someone like apostropher (he takes pleasure in the joke too much to check the truth or factual reality of the claim about the people or their beliefs.)
And you people don't know what you're missing when you scorn all vicars. There are some hott women priests.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 7:33 AM
anyone who talks about astrology as if it's at all meaningful
I talk about it as if it's a parlor game. Which it is.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 7:34 AM
BostonianGirl -- what does it mean to insert a bracketed "sic" in your own writing? That you caught a typo but liked it too much to correct it?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 7:35 AM
One can be quite religious without being pious or terribly devout
To be fair, "devout" was the only specified word in my original list item.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 7:36 AM
Osner--it was an allusion to W.'s use of the word moo for moot. Since I was writing in a semi-serious vein, I thought that the joke would be missed unless I called attention to the error.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 7:47 AM
Ah -- makes sense.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 7:50 AM
I googled it, and apparently it's a friends reference?
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 7:53 AM
I can't find anything about Bush saying that. I'm afraid you've made an accidental Friends reference.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 7:57 AM
Okay, first off, on a list where we're excluding blondes for being insane and women who wear heels for being too high maintenance and women who wear makeup as tramps, excluding the religious for no terribly good reason is perfectly fine.
But in case baa wants an answer (I suspect #2 is most of it, given the people who seem to think that, having never met a Christian, they're all mentally challenged.):
5. Religion isn't like a hobby, or following a sports team (usually). If the person is seriously religious, then it's going to affect their entire world-view and entire life in ways their atheist partner cannot understand. I don't just mean inevitable political disagreements (which could happen anyway), but believing in a whole afterlife is going to Seem Weird. Making decisions based on what to expect in that afterlife is going to be Really Weird. Expecting one to raise their children based on that afterlife is Intolerably Weird.
And dude, if they're devout, you're probably not getting laid, at least not without guilt, so....
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 7:57 AM
Oh yes, Joey said that once on Friends, but I was thinking of W.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 7:58 AM
"it's okay, i'm planning to find a medium-sized, pesca-vege-tarian, eggnog-drinking danish or swedish man who is not a vicar, knows Pascal, and will read the zohar out loud to me at bedtime for my next boyfriend. eep."
By scandinavian or US standards? Americans are really short. But I've never drank eggnog, so it's a moot point.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:05 AM
I suspect #2 is most of it, given the people who seem to think that, having never met a Christian, they're all mentally challenged.
I can say, emphatically, that this is not my rationale. My father got his master's degree from Southern Seminary, I grew up in (and enjoyed growing up in) Southern Baptist churches, have married into practicing Greek Orthodox and Irish Catholic families, live in the South where they're not exactly hard to meet, yadda yadda yadda. Even the last insane blonde's mother was a Methodist minister, though that's confusing the categories and perhaps best to leave it alone.
The reason I don't (er, didn't) date devout Christians is the dull and predictable regularity of this very conversation.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:06 AM
And apostropher, I'm never sure what is meant by devout. I might be called devout, but I laugh at the term and make fun of many who are excessively pious. I do go to church regularly.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:06 AM
We can try the cattle rustlers in a moo court.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:07 AM
I suspect that when people are saying 'devout', they might mean something more specific than the regular churchgoer. Maybe the sort that has to preface everything with how God told them to vote Republican?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:08 AM
Good lord, but that woman wouldn't want to date me. Not that it's ever a surprise.
1, 2, 3, 6.
"I AM GOING TO MAKE GARY FARBER LOOK LIKE A PUPPY DOG."
Kewl, because I did my sodden drinking last week, and I'm done for the whole year!
Although I'm perfectly happy to engage in enthusiastic licking under the right circumstances.
Ah, 52. Although I do like much pop culture.
I'm completely there with 59. Us Scorpios are like that.
"No one smarter than me. No one dumber than me."
Smarter than me is a highly desirable, and possibly essential, attribute. Dumber than me, without getting into multiple forms of intelligence, the need not to confuse lack of given knowledge with smarts, and so on, tends to be highly problematic for me. I have trouble keeping my mouth shut, and restraining the sarcasm. No one knows this about me. (Although I really did think it was unfair when the girlfriend-professor at Major Eastern Colleges who grew up in Boston and was then teaching at Columbia started yelling at me merely because my eyebrows popped when she said she'd never heard of Radio City Music Hall or Rockefellar Center; I imagine it was pent up from less reasonable responses on my part.)
But, in general, complementary traits are often as desirable and rewarding as similar traits; this is why rules, for me at least, seem emotionally desirable, but not necessarily at all wise. Also, the unknown unknowns.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:10 AM
Might people be using "devout" (incorrectly) as a synonym for "fundamentalist"?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:11 AM
Ooh, touche apostropher. (I know there's an accent there--I'm too lazy to figure out how to put one in.)
Well, I would probably date an agnostic, but I don't think that I could stomach a Southern Baptist. And don't assume you know what people mean by an afterlife.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:12 AM
I laugh at the term and make fun of many who are excessively pious
You don't qualify, then. Can I take you out some time?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:16 AM
I wouldn't date someone who is religious. It would be, to me, like dating someone who believed in astrology. I suppose that tars me as a doctrinaire atheist. And I suppose that kind of comment is what apo was getting in trouble for with his religious dates.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:28 AM
Now that's a doctrinaire atheist. Apo isn't though.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:39 AM
Apo isn't though.
I'm not even a half-assed atheist. To my eyes, atheism requires just as big a leap of faith as theism. I don't (and likely won't ever) have enough evidence to make a determination one way or the other, but I can say this: if I was able to know definitively one way or the other, it wouldn't change a single thing in the way I live my life.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:43 AM
For example, he would still ask out bostoniangirl even though he's married.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:44 AM
One way or the other, I'd like to be able to go back and edit out one instance of "one way or the other" in my previous comment.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:45 AM
I don't really care much whether a person is religious, as long as they're very rational. Someone who is prone to illogic is anathema. And I'm afraid, to some extent, being religious is correlated with having a higher tolerance for illogic where it counts, just as astrology is more strongly correlated. But there are exceptions.
On the other hand, I'm a pretty irrational person myself in a lot of ways, and I think I can tolerate a good amount of irrationality, as long as it's conscious and there are no delusions about it. Cause let's face it--people's desires are extremely irrational. Is it wrong to go to church even if you know all the doctrine is a bunch of bullshit just because it makes you feel good to sing the hymns? It may be a bit immature, from a doctrinaire atheist's standpoint, but I know I can tolerate a bit of immaturity, because I know I have plenty of it myself.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:47 AM
I believe it should be "an anathema". That's not a very comfortable word, but it can be a nice word.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:50 AM
I'm really not seeing the bother. Apo's criteria makes complete sense to me, and I couldn't date (well, marry) someone who was an atheist. As Cala said, it's an important part of a belief system, and decisions are going to be made on the basis of it - if it is wholly incomprehensible to me , why would I date (well, marry) someone for whom it was important?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:52 AM
"people's desires are extremely irrational"
Compare sexual fetishes. I think I like the idea of religion being analogous to a sexual fetish.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:54 AM
I don't see how a desire can be rational or irrational.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:58 AM
Let's not write off Christian women. Many were raised that way and have never known anything else. They're often grateful to be shown the other side of life, and extremely enthusiastic too. And if you can convince them that you're Jesus, you get absolute lifetime devotion, whether you want it or not.
Others are into the sin-and-repentance cycle. They're a bit more sophisticated and jaded than the sincere ones, but still fun, and during their guilt phase they usually stay out of your hair.
I didn't say anything about those cute sailor-suit uniforms, but keep in mind that the age of consent in many states is now 18, not 12 the way it used to be. Make sure that you're working from an up-to-date edition of the Revised Statutes.
I don't know nothing about Christian guys, but something tells me, Don't go there.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:58 AM
I don't know nothing about Christian guys
All of them: gay.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 8:59 AM
Well, I might have said arational. People do have many rational desires, which are second-order desires derived from arational primary desires. (I want a relationship (primary) so I want to ask someone out (secondary).) They can also have irrational desires that are similarly derived, but derived using faulty logic. But there are a lot of desires and quirks that are pretty much arational.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:01 AM
Shit. I'm too short, fat, and obsolete for the girl, and too atheistic for Tim. All hope is lost.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:02 AM
Well, they all may gay, but even so, I wouldn't want my brother to marry one.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:03 AM
But I was probably talking completely about arationality and not irrationality in 87.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:03 AM
Bad experience with fundamentalist Christian guys, generally; those who self-identify loudly as Christians seem to have problems with intelligent women because women are supposed to be submissive and love their husbands.
(I'm preparing the marshamallows to roast on the flames.)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:04 AM
I really like "gay" as a verb in 96.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:05 AM
I'm only an atheist because people here in the Sunny Southlands keep asking me which Baptist church I attend. I wouldn't even think about it except living here my lack of faith is rubbed rather agressively in my face on a daily basis. I'm able to refrain from talking about secular humanism for minutes- nay, hours! at a time.
There isn't anything wrong with being religious- in the ethical guidance department it's much to be preferred to astrology. As long as those moral precepts don't include the ever-popular 'you're going to hell, I'm so sorry' thing, which does tend to be disliked by the person going to hell. And yes, I know not everyone does that sort of thing.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:06 AM
Well, Cala said something else about the downsides of religious men, so I don't feel so bad and alone and disrespectful.
That was when I realised that the Christian gig wasn't for me- my parents' church was very big on the womanly submission. The notion that I'm supposed to be deferential and sweet and allow someone to boss me around solely because of their gender makes me want to punch someone.
I also evaluate prospective partners on the ratio of fiction to non-fiction books they own. If they have way more books with elves and swords or Space Marines on the covers than books with exciting titles like 'Race and Class in Colonial Latin America' we are probably not going to have too much to talk about.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:11 AM
"I don't really care much whether a person is religious, as long as they're very rational. Someone who is prone to illogic is anathema."
Same in my camp. I'm, practically speaking, an atheist, but I also have tremendous respect for many aspects of religion. How people practice, and what they believe, is closer to a sorting mechanism for me, rather than a binary one.
Most of my serious relationships have been religious to one degree or another. The two who chose to practice observant Judaism took some discussion with to clarify what I was happy to cooperate with and what I was not, but it wasn't the biggest issue in either case. The Catholic/Quaker, it wasn't an issue at all, other that in those days I would't have a Christmas tree in the house (I'm older, wiser, more tolerant now, and worry about more important things in life). Ditto the other relatees who were less religious, but were at least slightly.
Children do certainly require discussion, but they always do.
"...to some extent, being religious is correlated with having a higher tolerance for illogic...."
Rather weakly; I think I can find, for instance, more than a few Catholic and Talmudic scholars to put in evidence, not that I mean to slight other traditions. But, really, was Thomas Aquinas so illogical? Or Maimonides?
"Compare sexual fetishes."
You first.
"Let's not write off Christian women."
I'm quite sure I never have. (Are you using the C word as synonomous with "fundamentalist," or something similar?)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:12 AM
98: Well, I've taken to saying that my religion is Christianity, because it is. But most non-Christians expect me to tell them my denominaton--Episcopal.
The fundamentalists and the evangelicals (overlapping but not synonymous categories of people) have so taken over these terms that I feel it's important to take the term back.
I've met Hispanic girls from less well-educated families who will tell you that they are Catholic not Christian. (And BTW, I'm catholic too, just not a Roman Catholic.) They do this, because the evangelicals have appropriated the term. I doubt that the pope would say that he wasn't a Christian.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:17 AM
Ogged likes "to gay." No surprise there.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:18 AM
"I also evaluate prospective partners on the ratio of fiction to non-fiction books they own. "
What if they own thousands of each? (I don't any more; living through two fires and other disasters can change one from a pack-rat/collector of major standing into someone who has found a piece of his inner Boddhisatva, and some of the benefits of simplifying life. I don't recommend the method, however.)
Nice as ever to see the skiffy singled out for the mock, rather than, say, mystery or romance novels, or good/bad, of course. (Not trying to threadjack onto the there-need-not-be-a-dichotomy-between-low-and-high culture topic; we just did that one. If people didn't constantly bring it up, I wouldn't too constantly respond.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:19 AM
"Most of my serious relationships have been religious to one degree or another."
"...have been with religious women" is closer to what I intended to say. Although we did have many religious sexual experiences.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:22 AM
"I also have tremendous respect for many aspects of religion."
For example, the submissiveness of women. We scorn the ancient wisdom at our cost.
For me "Christian" = "actually believing Christian" not "ethnic Christian who still occasionally goes to church". I went to church myself when my mother was alive, for her sake.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:25 AM
makes me want to punch someone.
That's adorable. I'm trying to outdo mcmanus here.
I've met Hispanic girls from less well-educated families who will tell you that they are Catholic not Christian.
My sister-in-law, a practicing Catholic from Raleigh, is doing an internship in a ruralish bedroom community thereof, in an office staffed with Baptists. When she remarked offhandedly that she was Christian too, they looked at her patronizingly and said, "You're Catholic."
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:26 AM
Oh, romance novels would be way out. Mystery novels too. I have a feeling if I say that it would only be worse if they proudly displayed a gigantic collection of role-playing books Gary will explode in wrath.
I don't mind people reading fiction of that sort (which you must admit is very generous of me), but the people who read it to the exclusion of all else tend to have these very strange ideas about katanas and feudal Japan along with it. Not so much into that, having been burned before.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:26 AM
94, 97: OK, that makes sense.
Sign one is a doctrinaire atheist: Using the term Sky Fairy.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:28 AM
Winna, are you related to Winnaretta Singer, namewise?
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:32 AM
if I was able to know definitively one way or the other, it wouldn't change a single thing in the way I live my life.
I bet if you knew for sure there was a god who sent people to hell for eating bacon you'd quit eating bacon. I know I would. At least I might. At least I might think about it.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:33 AM
Depends. Is there bacon in hell?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:35 AM
Hell is run by skinny blond vegans. So, no.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:37 AM
Anyhow, I was raised Baptist. We're all about the deathbed conversions, yo.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:37 AM
My one criterion is intellectual curiosity. That pretty much covers it for me, for friends and lovers alike. Someone who is incurious is someone I barely can share the same planet with.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:40 AM
Michael - did you ever say why you weren't drinking for the last week and a half?
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:40 AM
By the by, was there an actual "brokeback mountain" discussion group somewhere? Or, in short, Should I see the film?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:41 AM
oops - "last" s/b "next"
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:41 AM
No, no Becks - for the next week and a half. The nightmare has only begun. The reason why is drugs. I can't be mixing.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:43 AM
114: All I have to do is lose some weight and I'm in charge? Man, I've fantasized about cracking a whip into Apostropher's roasting flesh for as long as I've been an Unfogged commenter. 128 here I come!
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:43 AM
I thought it was hell, but maybe it was only the mineshaft.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:45 AM
I don't think winna's said much inflammatory; she gave a good reason, namely, 'we wouldn't have much to talk about'.
I would find a shelf full of 'Race and Class Consciousness in South Africa 1960-1990' horribly dull, and if that's all a person could talk about, I'd be bored to tears.
I think a moderate amount of sci-fi/fantasy/all-around geekiness is a pre-requisite for me, largely because I don't want to have to explain references all the time, and because sci-fi reading can be an enjoyable passtime.
Someone who thinks they would pwn in feudal Japan because they had a 20th-level monk/samurai once? Not so much.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:47 AM
I've fantasized about cracking a whip into Apostropher's roasting flesh
Get in line, dear.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:50 AM
120 - Sorry to hear that, Michael, especially now that we've established that you're legal. (Sorry about my indelicate question at the meetup, BTW. I thought I remembered you saying once that you were around L.'s age. And not that I care if minors drink, anyway. I just like to know when they are so I can enjoy corrupting them.)
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:51 AM
Michael, if it's any consolation, I'm wishing right now that I had teetotaled last night.
I'm telling you, I don't care what you've heard; that third bottle of wine isn't as good an idea as you might think it is.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:55 AM
Are we still doing the list thing? Mine is short because I haven't thought about it before, really.
People I can't date:
1) Anyone obsessed by one particular thing. Sports, sci-fi, especially philosophy. It gets very dull.
1a) This rules out all graduate students.
1b) Yes, I am in graduate school.
1c) Yes, this is counterproductive.
2) Anyone taller than 5'11''. I don't like feeling short.
3) Anyone smaller than me, by which I mean body type and weight as well as height. I don't like feeling heavy.
4) Those who have weak chins or wimpy shoulders.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:56 AM
Ben W, do I not also recall that marriage and children are a prerequisite to licit study of Kabbalah. If so, you have to hand it to Madonna: first class all the way.
And if apostropher is turning Madonna away from his door, then I agree with your wonderment.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:57 AM
Becks, totally fine with it, didn't think twice about it. And thanks for the condolences!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:57 AM
When she remarked offhandedly that she was Christian too, they looked at her patronizingly and said, "You're Catholic."
That shit kills me. Why would any Catholic ever take that kind of shit from someone whose Church came into being five minutes ago. When I was growing up, my Catholic friends made fun of my "hand-me-down" religion. And it was just. When did Catholics turn into such punks?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:58 AM
Joe, wine can be insidious, but don't write off the third bottle prematurely! You'll just have to hydrate better next time! Anyways, good luck with the hangover. A bagel and coffee is my favorite post-party breakfast/lunch.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:01 AM
That's quite a list, Cala, but I'm confident that you'd break its strictures once you meet me.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:03 AM
I'm usually fit as a fiddle the day after. Wine, though, is very different stuff.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:04 AM
5) People who obsessively correct other people's grammar in person. (Online, such a trait is either cute or merely irritating. Back in the real world, I think it really should be considered grounds for justifiable bitch-slapping.)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:06 AM
Cala, that's really too bad. I fit all your criteria, but for being an even 6'. Unless you have some weird thing about not dating married guys. In which case it's back to trying to charm BitchPhD.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:10 AM
Aside: speaking of dating requirements, has everybody seen this?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:13 AM
I have a boyfriend, and he has a problem with me dating married guys. Surprising.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:19 AM
I havce a wife and she has a problem with me dating unmarried women. See how much we have in common? Call me.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:22 AM
Awesome, Apo! Did you notice this: One guy told me he was "ferociously loyal"? I can't believe ogged is keeping things about his dating search from us.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:25 AM
I respond to every single personal ad posted on the internet. What else do you need to know?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:36 AM
The best part about that post is the anonymous commenters fiercely declaring that the writer was evil for not being serious in a personal ad, and that she may be responsible for pushing someone over the edge.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:39 AM
141: Yes, high comedy indeed.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:42 AM
My name is the pronunciation of my given name by a three-year-old. It stuck. I don't mind- there are worse things three-year-olds can call you.
And Catholics should fight back about the Johnny-come-lately churches more often. I have been mistaken for a Catholic several times here because I would refute some of the more bizarre stories people tell about Catholicism when they think there are no Catholics in the room.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:44 AM
Funniest was the Scientologist who tried to recruit her in one response, and pretty much called her a dirty slut in another.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:47 AM
"For example, the submissiveness of women. "
John, I'm quite sure I need not define "many" to you.
"Oh, romance novels would be way out."
Hate Pride And Prejudice, then?
"Mystery novels too."
Name of The Rose?
This is the "if it's good, it's not genre" system, unless you find that any taint of imagination, romance, or mystery is hateful in fiction.
"I have a feeling if I say that it would only be worse if they proudly displayed a gigantic collection of role-playing books Gary will explode in wrath."
No, I'm working on being less wrathful; I dislike the bloated feeling. Some of my best friends do write and create or just play RPS games, though, and they're extremely smart, literate people, I assure you. Slightly different form of activity than creating a fixed form of fiction, to be sure, as well. Not clearly more intellectually despise-worthy than playing poker, though, although I'll happily listen to the argument.
"...but the people who read it to the exclusion of all else tend to have these very strange ideas about katanas and feudal Japan along with it."
Some. And many others similar equivalents. I'm quite willing to bet that I've met about about a thousand times more idiotic, and highly limited, sf/fantasy readers than you have. (And gamers, as well.) There are few categories of aficionados that lack for such folks, and few fields of endeavor that lack for having a huge percentage of crap. Most genre fantasy, and plenty of sf, is crap.
Then there's the rest.
Equating the lowest work with what a field does at its high level may not necessarily yield the most accurate appraisal, and it may also lead one to miss lots of fascinating, compelling, thought-provoking, or at least highly entertaining work , although we're also dealing with a topic of immense subjectivity, to be sure.
Ditto on 116.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:48 AM
Y'all remember the evil harpy woman?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:48 AM
the pronunciation of my given name by a three-year-old
I have cousins who grew up with the nicknames of Zibba and Jofus from this exact methodology. They didn't really stick, though.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:50 AM
Name of The Rose?
I luuuv mysteries, and Name of the Rose blows.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:53 AM
unless you find that any taint...is hateful in fiction
Or atm.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:53 AM
Zibba is a cool nickname! I would totally call myself Zibba forever.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:54 AM
"What else do you need to know?"
Should I sometime blog my rant on Things In Personal Ads That Drive Me Crazy? It's been in the back of my head for years. It's overly clogged back there. Illiteracy comes first; use of generic statements over specifics comes next. What the fuck does one learn about someone who only says they love walks on the beach, movies, and sitting in front of the fireplace, except that they are apparently too brain-dead to either desire to or be able to differentiate themselves who can actually speak without putting you to sleep?
See, that's just a start.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:55 AM
gary, the first part of your comment was terribly uncharitable. You presumably knew what the writer meant, so why do you need to criticize? After all, it's not substantial criticisim, but semantical. And it's a rather questionable objection, too. Calling The Name of the Rose a mystery novel isn't very accurate, because "mystery" is only a part of what the novel accomplishes, and probably not it's most important achievement.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:57 AM
Illiteracy comes first
This comes first, second, third, fourth, and sixth for me.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:58 AM
"...and Name of the Rose blows."
That's fine. I didn't feel like running through a list of possibilities, since I know everyone is smart enough to simply take my point about there being a range of quality in most given categories, rather than quibble with the fact that everyone's taste varies.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 10:59 AM
I made no moral judgements about those kinds of people- I simply said I wouldn't want to date them. I think Gary is reading a lot into my comments that simply wasn't there.
But hey, that's what the internet is for.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:06 AM
146: Great. Now I want to date her.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:07 AM
153: Fifth place is using "party" as a verb.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:08 AM
"Calling The Name of the Rose a mystery novel isn't very accurate, because "mystery" is only a part of what the novel accomplishes, and probably not it's most important achievement."
And the genre aspects of any good work are merely a part of what the text accomplishes. My point. Regarding genre as taint -- pretty much another version of the "one drop" theory, save that in genre-dismissal we get the aforementioned "oh, that's good, it's not [GENRE]" exception. Which is what you're doing by ruling NOTR as non-genre.
Note: the semi-arbitrariness of how something is published is likely clearer when you've watched and participated in the sausage being made. Note: I worked as editorial assistant on the publication of Zamyatin's We both as a Bard Book (the "literary" line, very respectable packaging, no genre label) and as an Avon Book, slightly different, more genrish packaging, and "SF" on the spine. Naturally, Mirra Ginsburg (the translator) called me up and screamed at me for about this desecration of Zamyatin by claiming he was sf.
And yet books don't actually change content, or value, according to what symbol or logo the publisher chooses to put on the spine. Really.
I'm frequently uncharitable about people mocking genres, and most particularly sf/fantasy, simply for being genres, and for referring to them as if they only consisted of their worst examples; this is perhaps sad, but it's true. Don't insult my field, and many of my lifelong, or former, friends and colleagues, and I won't bridle.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:12 AM
Catherine won't date a guy unless he's over four inches taller than she is? That seems weird (and yes, the notion that at 5' 10.5" I'm a "shorty" does offend me slightly).
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:14 AM
Is there any point in pointing out that winna just said she didn't want to date someone who had "way more" fantasy / sf than serious nonfiction books, and didn't actually mock genre fiction?
I mean, I know there isn't. But I'm doing it, anyway.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:15 AM
You don't think it has anything to do with the way people saddle up their ponies and ride to war whenever anyone mentions the genre?
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:17 AM
"Fifth place is using 'party' as a verb."
That's whom you may want to sleep with, but not necessarily attempt commiting with. If that's what you're looking for.
Based on my quite limited sampling (I've yet to ever answer or publish a personal ad, although I've drafted a couple in the distant past, and may violate that history in the coming year; maybe), I find interesting sociological differences between the sorts of different personal ads one finds at different sites.
For instance, London Review Of Books and HotOrNot: not so much in common. (Although suddenly I wish to see an experimental switching of some ads from one to the other, and check the results.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:17 AM
That seems weird
Well, I've obviously no insight into what sets Catherine's boat afloat, but from personal experience, I can propose the following: when slow dancing, a 4-5 inch height difference is pretty much optimal for fitting together perfectly. Also, a third breast in the middle of the back is nice, but you don't run into that so often.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:18 AM
yeah, it mentions parties in a few of the songs, but you once you understand the Andrew W.K. persona, you understand that it just doesn't apply to parties, it applies to life
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:19 AM
Gary, I don't remember anyone insulting a particular genre. People have expressed intolerance with fanatical-levels of obsession with genre. This is the problem with being an uncharitable reader; i.e. missing what other people are actually saying. It's kinda like you have PTSD with scifinerd-mockage.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:20 AM
I am sure I've never dated a Protestant, even though (because?) I was in a Southern Baptist household.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:22 AM
. . . was raised in a Southern Baptist household.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:24 AM
Incidentally, I used to think "romance novels" were all crap, too, until I started working with with major romance editors, and learned that it was more complicated than that.
Among other typos/errors in 158 were that the second "Note:" should have been "Example:" and I was trying to say that Mirra Ginsburg screamed at me for about 20 minutes for our desecration of Zamyatin by slandering his work with the label of "sf."
Okay, back to whom we'd date/not-date, and personal ads, and the like. I'd also advise serious daters to under-rate themselves in descriptions, if they're looking for a long-term relationship. Better to be pleasantly surprised when you inevitably discover reality than bitter and pissed. My theory, anyway.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:26 AM
I was in a Southern Baptist household.
Not only was I raised in a Southern Baptist household, I was born in Baptist Memorial Hospital (Louisville, KY) while my dad was in Baptist seminary, on his way to becoming a Baptist minister of music. I dated several Protestants, but ended up marrying Orthodox and Catholic. I'm currently taking auditions for Jews and Mormons, in case this one doesn't work out.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:28 AM
I'm about 5'5'', and head-shoulder snuggle ratio works best around 5'10''.
I don't know why it seems that sci-fi types are more aggressive in defending their turf, winna; perhaps it's due to playground bullies or similar childhood trauma. But I've never heard a fan of romance novels charge up if someone jokingly derides their plots and start screeching about Austen or medieval poetry and how THAT IS ROMANCE TOO in quite the way that an offhand remark about, say, why David Eddings sucks sets off a sci-fi/fantasy fan. Maybe because it's more of a niche (though I'm not sure I buy that.)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:29 AM
"I also evaluate prospective partners on the ratio of fiction to non-fiction books they own."
I'm baffled by the implication that only reading fiction equals being vapid. People who almost only read nonfiction woul be, what, businessmen and the like? For me it would signal that your'e *not* very intellectual.
Are you generally uninterested in artistic pursuits? Music, film?
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:34 AM
Oh, and Gary's right about underestimating one's appearance; I think I've said this before, but one of my friend's sole comment on an evening out with an Internet date was '5'1'' and 180 pounds is not an average build.'
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:35 AM
Alright, I'll try.
1) The retarded. I have trouble imagining myself becoming one of those people who takes a lot of joy in the really simple things.
2) The unintrospective.
3) People who would put vegetarians on a list of people they wouldn't date.
4) The incurious.
5) More racist/sexist/homophobic than the visceral stuff that's hard to shed.
6) No one who would lose his hard-on after seeing me give birth (and this can be taken as a stand-in for a constellation of attitudes about the body and its functions. Similarly, if you think you would not want to fuck me if I let my body hair all grow in, I don't want to date you.)
7) Triple and quadruple amputees. I would date up to a double amputee.
8) Substantially smaller than me on multiple dimensions. A little shorter could be compensated for by breadth, skinniness can be compensated for by height.
9) I have trouble imagining the path by which I'd sleep with someone who voted for Bush twice.
10) Fundies. Fundie atheists would be okay as long as they weren't really dumb about it. I would date someone who vehemently believed that believing in god in this day and age was a failure of some sort, as long as they knew when to keep their mouth shut. I mean, Salman Rushdie is kind of an evangelical atheist. I probably wouldn't date him for other reasons, though.
11) People with an inexpressive affect.
12) People who think vulgarity is an unattractive quality. More broadly, anyone whose sensibilities are easily shocked, by behavior, life history, etc.
13) People who would say, "I just don't care about politics."
14) People with a really eclipsing monomania, like Cala said. That was a good one.
15) People who are freaked out by hysterical giggling. More broadly, people who are freaked out by extreme displays of emotions of all kinds.
16) No one who is really into their possessions qua status symbols.
17) No one who acts like I shouldn't sing because I can't sing well.
18) Although as it turns out reading isn't necessarily an essential, I'd still include an interest in/appreciation for words. Under the right circumstances, I'd date someone who couldn't read who had this quality.
20) Someone who keeps kosher/halal, unless they keep some kind of more expansive eco-kosher, or, in talking about it, acknowledge that it's kind of stupid but they just aren't ready to give up the tradition of their ancestors.
Hey, this is kinda fun. It makes me feel powerful.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:37 AM
Conversation has to have some common ground, yes? And if all someone has on their shelves are books about subjects I'm not very interested in, odds are good we're not going to go great guns in the talking department.
I'm glad that not only am I somehow a snob, I'm also not an intellectual (a thing I never claimed to be, anyway, I'm just a person with a fondness for dull books). I think this is the first time I've ever been called both in the space of twenty minutes!
Thank you, everyone, for allowing me to achieve this goal. I'd like to thank the academy, my peers, and Arthur C. Clarke.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:39 AM
Come on, give winna a cookie, guys, and stop being retarded. We didn't call you names when you didn't want to date women that were blondes.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:42 AM
It doesn't seem extremely unfair to say that Winna seems to have somewhat categorical opinions of people. Seems, mind you, but I don't think Farber is being oversensitive, for once.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:42 AM
I am, however, extremely tolerant of people who have trouble numbering lists and keeping the items on them expressed in a form consistent with the others.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:42 AM
"...can propose the following: when slow dancing, a 4-5 inch height difference is pretty much optimal for fitting together perfectly."
I find that it makes no difference when horizontal, however. We all have priorities.
165: "Gary, I don't remember anyone insulting a particular genre."
101: "If they have way more books with elves and swords or Space Marines on the covers than books with exciting titles like 'Race and Class in Colonial Latin America' we are probably not going to have too much to talk about."
Now, obviously I wasn't trying to say Winna isn't perfectly entitled to her preferences. But I'm unclear that that was precisely a balanced view of the genre, rather than an implication that books with those genre tags on the covers -- and don't get me started about how genre symbols on covers come about, the arbitrary nature of it, and the horrible covers many fine works get (and great covers much crap gets), because that's far more complex than mere logos; it's purely simple signifiers, though -- are , per se, crap. I'll show you covers for Ursula Le Guin, or a hundred other writers of similar quality with elves and shit on their covers.
"It's kinda like you have PTSD with scifinerd-mockage."
It's also kinda like I run into the dismissals/stereotypes every single day. We all live in different worlds, even when they overlap. I read reviews and commentary on sf, along with a hundred other topics, almost every day, including from those who use such shorthand to dimiss genres (though rarely mysteries, unlike during the early/middle 20th century, when it was almost as disreputable as sf). So while the sensitivity started in childhood days, it's not just a bizarre, neurotic, not-from-these-times reaction. You can check with most people who work in the field on this, if you doubt my word and perception.
I'm now officially trying to drop this subject, though, unless many others are deeply fascinated, because I doubt many are, and, as I said, we just ran through much of this a week or so ago when RAH came up.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:43 AM
7) Triple and quadruple amputees. I would date up to a double amputee.
I like that you thought about this. "Up to".
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:43 AM
I am, however, extremely tolerant of people who have trouble numbering lists and keeping the items on them expressed in a form consistent with the others.
Did you and Michael chat at the meetup?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:45 AM
Too bad you included #3, Tia, or I'd still be on your potential list. Well, depending on how strictly you interpret #1.
I have lots and lots of vegetarian friends, by the way. It's just that dating (for me) has generally meant lots of cooking together, and radically different diets gets to be a pain eventually. In college, I dated a woman for a brief time who really hated vegetables in almost every form and it was equally annoying.
It's nothing personal or ideological.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:46 AM
Good lord, wasn't the point of this silly-ass list making thing to roughly define broad categories?
What the hell is wrong with saying, "I've found that I don't have a lot in common with serious science fiction fans and prefer readers of dull books' that isn't also wrong with 'God, I don't like Russian chicks', or 'Chicks who wear heels are high maintenance and unlikely to be the sort of down-to-earth gal I like.' or 'I want to date a woman who likes camping and is outdoorsy, but wouldn't expect me to accompany her.'
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:46 AM
Catherine won't date a guy unless he's over four inches taller than she is? That seems weird (and yes, the notion that at 5' 10.5" I'm a "shorty" does offend me slightly).
well that's not short; just shorter than i personally would like. i guess i say 6'1" abritrarily because that's what tommy happens to be (though i did think he was a bit taller) and it seems like a pretty perfect height for me. and also i like to wear the dreaded heels once in a while so i need somebody with a few inches on me.
Posted by catherine | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:47 AM
"...But I've never heard a fan of romance novels charge up...."
Oh, good lord, go talk to any romance writer, or got to a Romantic Times convention.
Skiffy fans have nothing on romance people for defensiveness; they're a much younger genre, and even less respected by those who aren't fans of their genre.
I'd not hold David Eddings out as an exemplar of anything but how to write commercially successful fiction, myself, although in fairness I've not read anything by him since I was last paid to, about twenty years ago.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:48 AM
I won't date Sci-Fi fans, because they're so defensive.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:49 AM
182: Yeah, everybody's laughing 'til their own ox gets gored.
184: I've heard it too, actually.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:50 AM
I think David Eddings's works make excellent tinder. But unfortunately, that's the sort of stuff most people think of when they think sci-fi/fantasy (and, given his commercial success, probably what a lot of people mean when they say, 'Oh, I like fantasy novels.')
185: Teehee.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:52 AM
185: The Ogged/Farber courtship is officially over. Suitors, start your engines!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:52 AM
"People who almost only read nonfiction woul be, what, businessmen and the like?"
I don't fathom that; in my very limited experience with business books, most "businessmen" -- and this is a Vast Generalization, of course -- read little but "business" books, if that. (There are, of course, endless exceptions.)
Whereas most folks in my personal world of friends and acquaintances reads endless history, science, commentary, essays, and on an infinity of nonfiction topics, although, as usual, everyone has their own personal preferences and tastes and distastes, and I know some folks who either read little fiction or little nonfiction, who are nonetheless generally bright.
I have a bit of trouble understanding/empathizing with the more narrow-minded readers, but, fortunately, they don't have to follow my preferences, either. (I've also had an acquaintance or two explain how incredibly boring history, or science, or politics, or any and every given nonfiction topic is; a bit irritating, that -- not their personal preference, but their insistence this was a universal truth.)
Has anyone on this thread called anyone a name? I missed that, but I've been having another inexplicably woozy morning.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 11:59 AM
173:"11) People with an inexpressive affect"
I don't even know how to respond to this.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:00 PM
I don't even know how to respond to this.
It should include losing your cool, if you hope to date Tia.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:04 PM
"7) Triple and quadruple amputees. I would date up to a double amputee."
I also recommend avoiding men who either stole Hitler's Brain, or have had an additional head added. It helps attractiveness less than they say.
185: I've always hated sci-fi, myself. 187: yes.
188: I have faith that Ogged's and my love is true and ever-lasting. I always feel that way, right up until I'm dumped. (Warning: statement may not be literally true.)
There have always been discussions and debates in the sf community as to the wisdom and workability of mixed marriages, though there are, of course, innumerable examples of sucesses. Thus, death to close-mindedness by any of us.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:06 PM
Has anyone on this thread called anyone a name?
mcmanus called us all perverts.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:09 PM
Pervert, by the way, is pretty much my number one inclusion criterion.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:11 PM
Mental illness would be on my list, now. Dated a mild schizophrenic for a while, and someone with moderately severe bipolar disorder. It's tough to deal with.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:19 PM
Mental illness would be on my list, now.
We've already covered blondes, Matt.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:22 PM
Mental illness would be on my list, now. Dated a mild schizophrenic for a while, and someone with moderately severe bipolar disorder. It's tough to deal with.
totally. also, poets.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:22 PM
People who chew with their mouths open.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:23 PM
"Pervert, by the way, is pretty much my number one inclusion criterion."
Does flavor (or do you prefer "flavour"?) matter? Or how narrow-minded they are?
I'd like to self-contradictorily note that, aside from a single reference, I said nothing more about either "short" or "fat," although the first also goes back to childhood, and is not a matter of choice. Because we, indeed, are all entitled to our preferences, as this blog has touched on regarding the "who I'm attracted to" topic, many times. And life, they tell me, is unfair.
However, while I'm just fine with women with unshaven body hair of varying sorts -- depending upon the individual, of course, but history offers witnesses to my assertion -- and I'm fully with the "let's kick-drop men who lose interest in sex after their love's childbirth, the thought of comparing and contrasting prejudices against involuntary and voluntary conditions in The Other does occur to me. Essentially the same thing, or not? Any thoughts? Or is it all just "we have no control over our preferences"?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:24 PM
180: As much as it pains me to say it (because he is a handsome and charming young man), in spite of our mutual affinity for disorganized lists, I would be off Michael's list at 9, 11, and sometimes 17, and my impression is he would be off mine at 6.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:26 PM
I'd take offense apo, but my ditzy blond self just got distracted by something shiny.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:27 PM
People who chew with their mouths open.
YES! Total attraction-negater.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:29 PM
also, poets.
I read a study once that looked at rates of mental illness in various professions. Poets were at the top of the list (something like 50%, IIRC).
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:30 PM
That ban against people who chew with their mouths open also includes gum. I can't respect people who chew gum. I have no idea why. Perhaps it's the bovine look of contentment as their jaws work.
It is a continual source of wonder to me that I haven't had a date in four years.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:32 PM
201: Having dated no men, I can't overgeneralize anything about them into an offensive exclusion criterion. But I'll back you up: the only thing worse than finding yourself in a relationship with a mentally ill person is trying to end that relationship. The sense-of-responsibility vs. self-protection struggle turns an already heartbreaking situation into a soul-wrenching one.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:33 PM
Sometimes when I'm at home and relaxed, I chew with my mouth a little bit open. Not so open you can see the food, but apparently it makes my chewing loud. My boyfriend says it's the only thing he doesn't love about me.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:35 PM
I can't respect people who chew gum.
My mother used to tell me this rhyme when I was a kid:
Gum-chewing kid, cud-chewing cow.
What's the difference? Oh, I see it now!
It's the intelligent look on the face of the cow.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:35 PM
Oh, Tia, I loved you so.
My heart is broken.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:38 PM
"People who chew with their mouths open."
That drives me crazy. I have a prejudice against gum-chewing, as well. I don't mind smokers terribly, though, even though I've nevr smoked tobacco (save for the two or so experiments to see what I was missing).
If anyone ever starts rubbing ballons together in front of me, I will seriously kill you. Or want to, and I'll leave the room immediately, thinking passionately hateful thoughts.
The open-mouth chewing is far more common, however. It's not as if there's anything to say about it to someone, is there? (Someone who isn't a child.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:38 PM
If anyone ever starts rubbing ballons together in front of me
Umm, does this happen often to you, Gary? Are there lots of clowns in the publishing biz or something?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:40 PM
205: Do you rule out all mentally ill people? An awful lot of people have suffered from serious depression. One guy at Harvard, Ronald Kessler, thinks that something like 50% of the population has suffered a psychiatric illness over the course of a lifetime.
Mentally ill people who won't deal with their illnesses are awful, but people who seek treatment from psychiatrists shouldn't be shunned: they're just being responsible and proactive.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:42 PM
I can change, Winna!
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:43 PM
I've known too many people who 'wouldn't have married her if I had known depression was in her family tree' or 'we were engaged, but we broke it off when he was depressed' that it seems that for some, at least, depression is as much a turn-off as any other mental illness.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:46 PM
the only thing worse than finding yourself in a relationship with a mentally ill person is trying to end that relationship.
a totally wretched experience. took me years to get over the whole horrorshow. my insane ex, however, immediately went back to an old girlfriend, found a medication that actually worked for him, and won a big fat literary prize. however, he's still impossible, so I regret nothing.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:46 PM
Mentally ill people who won't deal with their illnesses
We've already covered religious people, bg.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:50 PM
"I read a study once that looked at rates of mental illness in various professions. Poets were at the top of the list (something like 50%, IIRC)."
My personal, totally anecdotal observation/suspicion, is that psychiatrists and psychologies are high on that list. I came to this conclusion while in single-digit age, observing my parents and their peers, who tended to largely be of that milieu; my theory around age 7 or so was that people tend to go into professions because of what worried them early on.
As observations go, it's likely not worth more than that sort of childish generalizing. Or is it?
When I wrote about gum-chewing, no one else had mentioned it here, but I actually am also reading and writing stuff elsewhere, as usual.
I'm not as concerned about seeing the food being chewed, since simply hearing it will make me irrational. Whereas I couldn't care less what I hear of any other bodily functions; I have no explanation. I'm sure Freud would.
If I felt like being serious, I'd agree with Apo in 205.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:51 PM
I've used up a week's allocation of howevers. I will have to be unambiguous and decisive until sunday.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:51 PM
I need to think of some othr qualifier than seem. General problem in my writing.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:53 PM
211: Seriously though, if they've already dealt with it and it's very much under control, then maybe. But having been through it twice, I would not willing to put myself through it again. The second time was while I was a single parent of a kid old enough to know what was going on and as a result, let me just add: hell no. Never again.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:55 PM
psychiatrists and psychologies are high on that list
After ten years in the ministry, my father decided he really fucking hated it and went to medical school at Duke, ending up in psychiatry. Through my adolescence, many of our family friends were in the profession, naturally. I'll back up your suspicion and were my father still alive, he would as well.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:57 PM
"An awful lot of people have suffered from serious depression."
Could be.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:58 PM
But, Gary, the balloons? Is this a euphemism?
I can't date people who smell weird. I can't describe it exactly. It's not normal body odor as it's too medicinal, but I can't identify the chemical.
To the larger question: I think desires are under some voluntary control (at least deciding to hate something is possible, though I'm not as convinced about choosing to love it), but quite a lot of the time, it's not worth the effort to change them. I prefer medium-height guys; I'm sure if I trained myself to love both the short and the tall I would be a better person, maybe, but who the hell cares?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:59 PM
The psychiatrist/psychologists I've known in private life have mostly ranged from disagreeably eccentric to batshit crazy. It may begin in childhood, but I think some of it's a result of dealing with people's craziness all day.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:02 PM
bg, I guess I really only mean more severe mental illness. Depression is fine (I'd be hypocritical if that was an automatic disqualifier), though only at the more mild levels. I'm not by any means dismissing anyone who's seen a psychiatrist. This is meant to apply to those relationships where I spend more time as a therapist than as a boyfriend.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:07 PM
I'd almost prefer someone with mild mental problems that they have under control, as they're more likely to be more self aware.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:18 PM
They have to be self-confident though. No people with serious self-esteem problems are worth putting up with. (I'm not sure; aren't those pretty easy to solve though, compared to other disorders?)
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:20 PM
"I can't date people who smell weird."
I imagine I'd agree; I've simply never had the experience. I've always adored the way my sweeties smelled uniquely as they do. But smell being what it is, most other smells on them would, I'm sure, be awful. (On the flip side, along with all my other bodily traits, I sweat heavily; I do, however, shower as many times a day as available and necessary. TMI now, I expect.)
"To the larger question: I think desires are under some voluntary control (at least deciding to hate something is possible, though I'm not as convinced about choosing to love it), but quite a lot of the time, it's not worth the effort to change them."
I'd agree with that. As I said last time the topic went by here, I believe that control-over-desire is, like much of life, a continuum, not a binary thing, and as usual, different for each individual. But I'm still interested in the opinions of others, and not just the sound of my own voice (believe it or not).
"...from disagreeably eccentric to batshit crazy. It may begin in childhood...."
Or it could also develop in college days or so, or later in life, to be sure. As I indicated, kinda a non-small generalization I was making. I'd like to hope there are, at the least, plenty of exceptions, and I do believe the number that there are is non-trivial. It can also be mainly about caring for other people. I theorize.
"...I'm sure if I trained myself to love both the short and the tall I would be a better person, maybe, but who the hell cares?"
Short and tall guys attracted to and interested in you, but, no, there's no more or less reason for you to care than for any of us to care to change our particular set of this-attracts/this-repels me criteria. (Or is there?) This may possibly not be an argument that works well in conjunction with the "fat is beautiful" or anti-"lookists" movements, and similar outlooks, of course, but, again, if it's not relevant to one's self, it's not. (It might, possibly be inconsistent with ever complaining that someone wasn't attracted to one's self based upon one's looks, perhaps.)
I gave up doing worse than sighing over women who were not attracted to me solely because I was 5' 4" somewhere not long after around the time I finally popped up there. Besides, in those days, and for many to come, it's not as if I didn't have plenty of attractive fascinating women throwing themselves at me. "Your loss" became my major attitude.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:20 PM
re 222
Nothing is as sexy as compatable non-overlapping immune systems.
It was found, by Wedekind and his team, that how women rate a man's body odor pleasantness and sexiness depends upon how much of their MHC profile is shared. Overall, women prefer those scents exuded by men whose MHC profiles varied the most from their own. Hence, any given man's odor could be pleasingly alluring to one woman, yet an offensive turnoff to another.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:21 PM
I think the biggest reason to try to be less picky about appearance is so that you can afford to be more picky about other things. (Of course, that cuts both ways.)
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:24 PM
books with exciting titles like 'Race and Class in Colonial Latin America'
Among a lot of my friends, having books like this could be considered hott. But it could also disqualify by reasoning along the lines of Cala's 1 a, b, and c.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:24 PM
Re 228:
So the more related you are genetically/racially, the closer your MHC profile, right?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:26 PM
I once had to end it with a totally awesome girl because her breath was deeply, painfully bad, even after a tooth-brushing.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:27 PM
Joe O, cool article up until the advice to ensure perfect compatibility by testing the smell purely (sans Pill, sans perfume)... I mean, if the theory is that the pill makes women prefer different odors because it mimics pregnancy, then shouldn't it be a good idea to take the pill to see if you'll like him over the long haul?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:32 PM
Re 231
There are a number of MHC profiles none of which can become dominant even within relatively small groups because it is better to have a mix of profiles than two copies of the same profile. Your relatives will have similar MHC profiles and thus will smell funny. People of the same racial classification will have a mix of MHC profiles and thus won't, in general, smell funny.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:38 PM
"So the more related you are genetically/racially, the closer your MHC profile, right?"
I suspect it's more complicated, since one can share any number of genes -- well, a large number -- and not share another large number. But I'm just guessing.
Why does my ID fields' data keep randomly disappearing since this morning?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:40 PM
Re 233
I think the advice is given to avoid this problem:
>Doctors have known since the mid-1980s that couples suffering repeated spontaneous abortions tend to share more of their MHC than couples for whom pregnancies are carried to term. And even when MHC-similar couples do successfully bring a pregnancy to term, their babies are often underweight.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:49 PM
Sure, but.... I'm trying to imagine it as a reason for a break-up, ya know? Intelligent, attractive, educated, responsible, but I went off the pill for a while so would you mind showering and wearing these clothes I washed in non-scented detergent so I can see if we're smell-compatible so we don't have miscarriages?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:54 PM
apo, right you are about already having dealt with the religion issue. You're just going to have to stop trying to get in the good graces of Dr. B, though, as she's taken antidepressants.
I think that pdf criticized those who laxk self-confidence. I think that Dr. B could hardly be criticized for that.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:55 PM
Boy, Apo really does up the "more Baptist than thou" thing! (Poor Armsmasher. )
Apo's probably one of those people who think that Baylor is a pesthouse of witchcraft.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 2:01 PM
"A little shorter could be compensated for by breadth".
Tia is very wise.
Perhaps, like the postal service and UPS, she could work out an algorithm for the total linear dimension.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 2:09 PM
"However, while I'm just fine with women with unshaven body hair of varying sorts "
Does that include women with back hair & beards?
Gary has said he needs to update the picture at his site, but I'll still bet I look more like Gimli than he does.
The emphasis on intellectual curiousity seems misguided. My lady, an unmarried committment if you must know, pretty much reads and watches only stories in which bunches of people get killed. She reads a lot, Clive Cussler and Dean Koontz and the like. She watches stuff like "Lost", "Nip & Tuck", "Desperate Housewifes" and a half-dozen other series. She avoids the news and current events as much as possible. She listens to top 40 and broadway showtunes. An IQ around 140, she just doesn't want to work at her play.
I like that in her. A lot. It helps me laugh at my own intellectual pretensions and worship of bullshit and useless knowledge. Worried about and researching exchange rates and Iranian politics and the legality of wiretapping? Trying to follow the posts at The Valve or Kotsko's? Learning about a new type of music every week? Watching "Dogville" ten times?
She keeps me honest and humble. Or at least makes me pretend I am, which will work sometimes.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 2:25 PM
The emphasis on intellectual curiousity seems misguided.
Wait...are you telling me that I'm not attracted to the kind of woman I'm attracted to? Or are you just saying that I shouldn't be, and should perhaps switch to the template that's more to your liking?
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 2:32 PM
Apo really does up the "more Baptist than thou" thing!
Well, aside from the whole "haven't darkened a church door in years" thing. But Smasher and I are both obviously running away from it with a suspicious eye cast over our shoulders.
bg: right, right, B's off the list (but then "women with kids" was #9 on my original list, so it was all just a harmless flirt from the get-go). I guess it's back to the Mineshaft after all. Ogged? Labs? 9:00?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 2:32 PM
Can I just steal Tia's list? Except 7, 8, 20, and 11. 6 is n/a of course.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 2:34 PM
Oh, so the retarded aren't good enough for you, Weman? Who's being superficial now?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 2:39 PM
"Does that include women with back hair & beards?"
It's not my intention to give an itemized list. For one thing, as I said, it depends upon the individual, and how the package works. But "varying sorts" excludes as well as includes. (One sweetie had the cutest almost translucently red hair on her legs; along with the rest of the redhead package, it was a turn-on; under-arm hair similarly may be perfectly delightful; probably not if were four feet long, though; It Just Depends; which means I don't exclude hair categorically, just as I'm fairly broad-minded -- damn that phrase coming up in these contexts -- about either not rejecting categorically a number of attributes I may reject in specific.)
See, already vastly TMI. I am weak. So so very weak.
"She keeps me honest and humble."
I tried to make a point about "complementary" in 78 above.
"Wait...are you telling me that I'm not attracted to the kind of woman I'm attracted to?"
I think Bob was merely trying to suggest that sometimes both people, and what they can do for us, can surprise us. But I've been known to take a hostile read when I shouldn't, myself.
"...but then "women with kids" was #9 on my original list...."
I wound up a demi-semi-hemi-pseudo parental unit, live-in brand, for a year, via not having it on my list. Although were you rejecting polygamy/polyamory?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 2:45 PM
the rest of the redhead package
Oh, I gotcher redhead package, Gary.
Just Depends
I find Depends to be a turnoff, but if it's your kink, then run with it.
were you rejecting polygamy/polyamory?
For myself, yes. I think it's a valid lifestyle choice, but based on my (admittedly limited) observations, the number of folks truly emotionally equipped to pull it off successfully wouldn't fill a high school gym.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 2:51 PM
I'm trying not to ask why Gary brought up polyamory in connection with dating people with kids.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 2:53 PM
The Red Head.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 2:54 PM
247: Which means it's easy to organize the Polyamory Prom, in the gym, with the twinkle lights.
(Hi, I'm Cala. My internal monologue is off today.)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 2:55 PM
Put that way, it sounds like some kind of pirate saloon.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 2:55 PM
"Oh, I gotcher redhead package, Gary."
Large random tufts would likely be more problematic for me. But it's wise not to go too far with hypotheticals.
"For myself, yes."
I trust you caught that I was merely yanking on your use of the plural.
I think it's time for my walk, now. Where's my leash?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 3:01 PM
"The Red Head"
I don't speak enough of the local language/code. Is there a translation matrix or glossary available?
Posted by