Oh, I am a teetotaler for the next ten days! Lawd, give me strength!
Oh, and Ogged, Tom whips up badass homemade spiked eggnog and hot chocolate. Just give up.
tommy, i believe, is 6'2". his enormous head probably helps his height. (i love you honey!)
What else has he lied to her about?
He's a vegetarian behind her back.
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)"
also, apo, i have to say i took offense to you not liking capricorns in your original list. what about us puts you off?
jeremy - well, that too. i mean, probably anything on that list would vanish if the person in question were extremely hott.
Catherine, all the ones I've known have been busy, busy people and living with one would make me tired.
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.
Totally irrational prejudice
Or highly effective filtering mechanism. Take your pick. You and John Waters are spot on.
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.
correction: tommy is 6'1". phew. just made it.
If I don't get banned at some point, my jokes are going to get worse and worse.
They can't get much worse than mine, and I haven't been banned.
Fine. The only thing worse than being banned is not being banned.
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.
Umm, in height, you perverts
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.
baa, apostropher's answer in the original thread was
I just make fun of it entirely too often to have that in a dating relationship.
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.
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.
30: Well, fair enough. I should more carefully have said, "religious differences often make big trouble" etc.
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.
>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.
No one wonders about the condition ruling out all of these fine people?
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.
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.)
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.
What? There's too much comity around here.
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.
And I'm going to bed
This is some Muslim thing, isn't it?
inshallah...in bed....at the mineshaft.
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'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.
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 mean -- BOY! Am I not a teetotaler!
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!
NUTCASE ALERT - RUN FOR THE HILLS!
no no, back to chatting.
in a moment of earnestness
I don't think that's allowed.
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.
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.
Washerdreyer -- Talking seriously about astrology (and other aspects of the occult) can be quite useful as an adjunct to marihuana.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I googled it, and apparently it's a friends reference?
I can't find anything about Bush saying that. I'm afraid you've made an accidental Friends reference.
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....
Oh yes, Joey said that once on Friends, but I was thinking of W.
"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.
We can try the cattle rustlers in a moo court.
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.
Might people be using "devout" (incorrectly) as a synonym for "fundamentalist"?
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 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?
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.
Now that's a doctrinaire atheist. Apo isn't though.
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.
For example, he would still ask out bostoniangirl even though he's married.
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.
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 believe it should be "an anathema". That's not a very comfortable word, but it can be a nice word.
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?
"people's desires are extremely irrational"
Compare sexual fetishes. I think I like the idea of religion being analogous to a sexual fetish.
I don't see how a desire can be rational or irrational.
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.
I don't know nothing about Christian guys
All of them: gay.
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.
Shit. I'm too short, fat, and obsolete for the girl, and too atheistic for Tim. All hope is lost.
Well, they all may gay, but even so, I wouldn't want my brother to marry one.
But I was probably talking completely about arationality and not irrationality in 87.
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.
Ogged likes "to gay." No surprise there.
"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.)
"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.
"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.
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."
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.
94, 97: OK, that makes sense.
Sign one is a doctrinaire atheist: Using the term Sky Fairy.
Winna, are you related to Winnaretta Singer, namewise?
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.
Depends. Is there bacon in hell?
Hell is run by skinny blond vegans. So, no.
Anyhow, I was raised Baptist. We're all about the deathbed conversions, yo.
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.
Michael - did you ever say why you weren't drinking for the last week and a half?
By the by, was there an actual "brokeback mountain" discussion group somewhere? Or, in short, Should I see the film?
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.
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 thought it was hell, but maybe it was only the mineshaft.
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.
I've fantasized about cracking a whip into Apostropher's roasting flesh
Get in line, dear.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
Becks, totally fine with it, didn't think twice about it. And thanks for the condolences!
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.
That's quite a list, Cala, but I'm confident that you'd break its strictures once you meet me.
I'm usually fit as a fiddle the day after. Wine, though, is very different stuff.
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.
Aside: speaking of dating requirements, has everybody seen this?
I have a boyfriend, and he has a problem with me dating married guys. Surprising.
I havce a wife and she has a problem with me dating unmarried women. See how much we have in common? Call me.
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.
I respond to every single personal ad posted on the internet. What else do you need to know?
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.
Funniest was the Scientologist who tried to recruit her in one response, and pretty much called her a dirty slut in another.
"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.
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.
Name of The Rose?
I luuuv mysteries, and Name of the Rose blows.
unless you find that any taint...is hateful in fiction
Or atm.
Zibba is a cool nickname! I would totally call myself Zibba forever.
"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.
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.
Illiteracy comes first
This comes first, second, third, fourth, and sixth for me.
"...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.
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.
146: Great. Now I want to date her.
153: Fifth place is using "party" as a verb.
"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.
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?
"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.)
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.
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.
I am sure I've never dated a Protestant, even though (because?) I was in a Southern Baptist household.
. . . was raised in a Southern Baptist household.
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.
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.
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.'
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.
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.
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.
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.
7) Triple and quadruple amputees. I would date up to a double amputee.
I like that you thought about this. "Up to".
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?
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.
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 won't date Sci-Fi fans, because they're so defensive.
182: Yeah, everybody's laughing 'til their own ox gets gored.
184: I've heard it too, actually.
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.
185: The Ogged/Farber courtship is officially over. Suitors, start your engines!
"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.
173:"11) People with an inexpressive affect"
I don't even know how to respond to this.
I don't even know how to respond to this.
It should include losing your cool, if you hope to date Tia.
"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.
Has anyone on this thread called anyone a name?
mcmanus called us all perverts.
Pervert, by the way, is pretty much my number one inclusion criterion.
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.
We've already covered blondes, Matt.
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.
People who chew with their mouths open.
"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.
I'd take offense apo, but my ditzy blond self just got distracted by something shiny.
People who chew with their mouths open.
YES! Total attraction-negater.
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).
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.
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.
Oh, Tia, I loved you so.
My heart is broken.
"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.)
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?
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.
Mentally ill people who won't deal with their illnesses
We've already covered religious people, bg.
"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.
I've used up a week's allocation of howevers. I will have to be unambiguous and decisive until sunday.
I need to think of some othr qualifier than seem. General problem in my writing.
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.
"An awful lot of people have suffered from serious depression."
Could be.
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?
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.
I'd almost prefer someone with mild mental problems that they have under control, as they're more likely to be more self aware.
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 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.
re 222
Nothing is as sexy as compatable non-overlapping immune systems.
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.
Re 228:
So the more related you are genetically/racially, the closer your MHC profile, right?
I once had to end it with a totally awesome girl because her breath was deeply, painfully bad, even after a tooth-brushing.
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?
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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?
Can I just steal Tia's list? Except 7, 8, 20, and 11. 6 is n/a of course.
Oh, so the retarded aren't good enough for you, Weman? Who's being superficial now?
"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?
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.
I'm trying not to ask why Gary brought up polyamory in connection with dating people with kids.
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.)
The Red Head
Put that way, it sounds like some kind of pirate saloon.
"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?
"The Red Head"
I don't speak enough of the local language/code. Is there a translation matrix or glossary available?
No Gary, you're just not smart enough.
the number of folks truly emotionally equipped to pull it off successfully wouldn't fill a high school gym.
That's a remarkably generous assessment. I'd've said about a shoe closet full, myself.
Not that there is anything wrong with shoes.
Well, the number of folks that wouldn't fill a shoe closet also wouldn't fill a high-school gym, if we want to be all w-lfs-nesque in his absence.
Not that there is anything wrong with shoes.
There might be something wrong with the shoes in that particular closet, though.
True.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to hold the Polyamory Prom in the shoe closet of someone that is not well beloved. That way when their shoes are all sticky from the fruit punch and there are Trivial Pursuit cards stuck to their soles it isn't a friendship shattering event.
Fruit punch is really the best case scenario.
Alright, I've got another superficial relationship disqualifier that I think will be pleasingly contentious: non-British people who say "whilst" a lot.
americans who spell certain words the british way (favourite, colours, etc). i come across this frequently, somehow.
americans who spell certain words the british way
Are you sure they're not Canadians? Because then they would have an excuse, at least.
Haha, after too many years of reading British children's books and some years with a Canadian boyfriend, I can't spell anything any moure withouut extraneouus u''s.
If you add "bloody" to that list I can't help but agree, even though I've said "whilst" once or twice myself. It's more a word to write than a word to say, though.
I'm not sure I could date someone who wore the special bike clothes for non-competitive biking, even if they looked good in them. The odds of offending them by snickering at some point would be too high.
if we want to be all w-lfs-nesque in his absence
Where is the hobgoblin of consistency, anyway?
their shoes are all sticky
Then again, there's potentially money to be made. All those tiaras won't come cheap, y'know.
260: Isn't it because they can't spell, rather than an affectation, though?
Nothing the Brits do is OK. They tried to destroy these United States twice.
nope, not canadians. just american anglophiles, or overly pretentious people, or something. it drives me crazy.
i wanted to add on to my fattie/shortie list bits, too - i couldn't date anybody who was too thin, either, even if they were very tall. it's a creepy sensation when you feel like you could accidentally crush the person you're dating.
268: I dunno. The Office was pretty funny. The whole milk-in-tea thing is utterly beyond me, though.
Don't be needlessly nebulous, catherine. Give us height/waist ratios.
What if they just like the letter "u"?
I take it you don't like chai, then.
267: nope. they are just being jerkoffs that i wouldn't date.
Admiral Stockdale gets 4 measly comments (till now) and this thread just keeps spinning. Hmmm.
i couldn't date anybody who was too thin
Tom's a pretty thin fellow as it is. How much weight would he have to lose to get cross the too-thin line?
Nah, Tom's "solidly built," I'm "thin," and apparently there's still a category for "skinny" (at least according to Jackmormon, who said her Iranian "had it all over" me in the skinniness department).
276: i've seen him from all weight ranges from about 165-190, maybe? 165 was getting a bit too thin for my liking. but really it's more of a build thing than weight. some people are just brittle-thin, and for me that's a turn-off. i think tommy's general build would prevent him from ever getting to the too-thin point.
273: The only chai I've ever tried was something called Monkey Chocolate Chai. It was good.
No, I mean tea like we threw in the Boston Harbour. To my palate, it isn't bitter/strong enough to stand up to the milk (see:coffee) and the whole thing just gets, I don't know, kind of icky.
Chai is kind of icky to me, too.
I don't know enough about Stockton to make good comments about him, unfortunately. I will feel guilty that I don't, if that makes it any better.
I don't know enough about Stockton to make good comments about him
Including his name, I'm sure Ben would say, and I would chastise him for saying.
What? Who drinks gunpowder tea anymore? Anyway, remember: the cream goes in before the tea, and only add cream to black teas.
Anyway, if "connexion" is wrong, then I don't want to be right.
I don't know enough about Stockton to make good comments about him
All you have to know is he's the NBA's all-time leader in assists and steals.
strong tea is good with milk in it. a perfect accompaniment to a bacony breakfast. cream in tea is hourrible.
Who am I? Where am I?
I may have a problem with spelling words that turns them into entirely different words. Don't tell w-lfs-n.
Is a bacony breakfast one with an abundance of bacon?
That is a good kind of breakfast.
Would people who plainly do not understand tea refrain from commenting on it like philistines, or cavemen at the Met? Thank you.
-The Civilized & Enlightened
yes, and it has to be american bacon. english and canadian bacoun are wroung.
somebody else i would not date: anyone who installs an RFID chip into their own hand. though i suppose it's inevitable for all of us.
"Or are you just saying that I shouldn't be, and should perhaps switch to the template that's more to your liking?"
I would never be so arrogant so as to tell people they shouldn't gather together in pairs or groups for the purpose of making themselves and each other feel really really smart. Especially not while the MLA is in session. Could get me banned.
Winna, you are a woman after my own shrivelled, congested heart.
I'm still wondering about Gary's thing with the balloons. Past trauma, perhaps? (NSFW)
Gawd, what I would pay to see some sort of Favorite Cranky Uncle-off competition between bob and Emerson....Not to be confused with Cranky-Uncle-on-Cranky-Uncle Action.
people who plainly do not understand tea
Michael, you're from Arkansas. How old were you before you got tea that wasn't iced?
Bacoun looks like it should be the brand name of artisanal bacon raised from Berkshire pigs who were massaged daily and fed from hand-carved wooden troughs. It costs $78 a pound but it's authentic bacon, the kind our ancestors ate back when people were born and then keeled over in about twenty minutes.
Their short lives had nothing to do with the bacon. That can be blamed on the tea made with pig milk.
Never put milk in tea that is a lemon infusion.
Just saying.
I was thirteen or so during that election, I don't remember Stockdale or the SNL sketch. Plus, we already had a thread about how, pretty much, the guy pwned but no one remembered he pwned.
what is a midnight engineer? I would install a chip in my hand if it would unlock and start my car.
McManus and I go way back. But don't leave Farber out.
I'd rather think of myself as the inappropriately lewd uncle, but apparently I've failed to achieve that effect.
the inappropriately lewd uncle
I've set the bar for inappropriate lewdness pretty high 'round these parts, John.
Dirty old men can also be cranky uncles.
301 is true, though "cranky uncles" != "skanky uncles". Those are totally different endeavors, with different licensing bodies and everything.
I feel that "unseemly is my middle name" is probably not a safe guide on the inappropriate lewdless issue, though granted that i.l. is for me a goal I wish to attain, perhaps he's the master.
Skanky uncles are in fact prohibited in 16 states, all of them West of the Mississippi.
IRL my first batch of four nieces, the youngest of whom is now 24, thought I was an ogre when they were kids, but my second batch of three, aged 9-14, just love me.
I learned a few things about niece protocols in the meantime. (Mainly, no roughhousing. And I was just trying to avoid sexism.)
the inappropriate lewdless issue
Now, lewdless vs. lewdness is an entire different juxtaposition. You need to pick a title and go for it, John.
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.
{cough} Speaking as someone who has more non-fiction than fiction (I think - I'd have to get a count going, which means I'd have to root them all out and we're not going there), I would nonetheless not have a book with the title above on my bookshelf...on account of the title screaming 'Cheesy (neo-)Marxist propaganda screedfest', although it might not be. I like my non-fiction to occasionally contain actual facts.
As for this other stuff, I am clearly nowhere near as picky about people I have never met as you guys are on average. So my list is very short.
1> Avoid catherine (and anybody else who freely associates themselves with narcissism).
ash
['That is all. Yeesh.']
It is a made-up book. I could have went with Colonial Latin America, lying on the floor next to my chair, but that wasn't as obviously as dull and dry as I wanted for my purposes.
Summing up everything I've learned about myself in this thread: I am a narcissistic neo-Marxist businessman and in my spare time I am a snob about genre fiction. I should fight crime. Or possibly myself. It's difficult to say.
Anyway, if "connexion" is wrong, then I don't want to be right.
Americans may use "connexion" if they are also David Hume.
I am a narcissistic neo-Marxist businessman and in my spare time I am a snob about genre fiction.
Which makes you undatable, under the "mentally ill" proviso.
I was beginning to wonder if this thread would ever go off topic.
McManus and I go way back. But don't leave Farber out.
He's not that old, but his truly awesome crankiness may make up for it.
He and I go way back you could say, but I think we're enemies now, or something.
I do own The Devil and Commodity Fetishism in South America, though it's in a box with the other undergrad textbooks I kept. Despite the title it's actually a very interesting book and would have been a swell choice for the purpose of the thread.
Which makes you undatable, under the "mentally ill" proviso.
Perhaps that is another sign I should become a superhero. It worked for Batman.
It worked for Batman.
Though less well for Captain Jackson.
ah well. i'm sure it's my loss.
Wait... Are you saying that you're the type of person who would date people with sigs? Cause I have this rule...
tom
['it's a joke']
I always like to think of myself as the sort of person who would read fiction, so look to date avid fiction readers in hopes of improving myself. So far, this has been a big failure as both a dating plan and a self-improvement scheme.
IIRC, McManus and I met at Sausagely's back when he (Sausagely) was still a neoliberal college student.
You know back when I said we have too much comity here? I take it back. Strangely, *I* have drawn little fire. Anyway, to winna: look at the source of such opinions, and weight them accordingly.
would nonetheless not have a book with the title above on my bookshelf...on account of the title screaming 'Cheesy (neo-)Marxist propaganda screedfest
Right, Right, far-Right. Race and class and Latin American history? How incompatible.
Apos: Doesn't that make my superior tea mastery all the more impressive? I am a lone cherry tree in a yellow-pine forrest.
Standpipe: connexion, connexion, connexion!
Impressing chicks is just about the only reason, other than sincerely enjoying it, to read fiction.
Captain Jackson, better known as Thomas Frankini
I don't see how that could possibly be true.
Impressing chicks is just about the only reason, other than sincerely enjoying it, to read fiction.
This pretty much applies to everything, I think.
Impressing chicks is just about the only reason, other than sincerely enjoying it, to read fiction.
This pretty much applies to everything, I think.
I learned that to my sorrow with poetry.
Men don't really like poetry- they just like chicks who like poetry. It was a sad discovery. Also I think Captain Jackson was led astray by his tailor. Only a man who drinks would recommend a superhero costume like that one.
I am a lone cherry tree in a yellow-pine forrest.
Dost thou blossom just for me?
Well, lifting weights might be done because you enjoy it, to impress chicks, or just so that you can beat up twerps.
Men don't really like poetry
I really like poetry. I've even continued buying it after getting married. I haven't met many chicks who like poetry - it's a damn poor route for scoring if it's used as such.
A trip down memory lane:
sex and lies
The mysterious girl who lives on the other side of my firedoor has been having a very loud fight with her boyfriend for over an hour in which she was demanding to know how many people he'd slept with before her and he was refusing to tell her. She kept saying "I have a right to know!" which doesn't sound right to me, but even more mysterious was why he wouldn't just tell her, or at least lie. Then, finally, after a whole hour of this he hit on my option number two, told her it was just one girl, and that he hadn't wanted to divulge this info out of respect for her privacy. Then she starts cooing about how cute he is and how much she loves him and how sorry she is for being so bitchy. Next, phone sex. Dishonesty — the foundation of any workable relationship.
I wouldn't want to date a Mensa member, or anyone who wasn't qualified to become a Mensa member (or at least close). Also, no one who doesn't think GWB is the scum of the earth.
I stand corrected.
Beating up twerps can be done with poetry as well. If you get a good hardcover of Alfred Lord Tennyson you can defeat anyone in combat as long as they haven't brought along the collected works of Whitman. Then it gets tricky.
Collected W.H Auden, beeyatch.
BOO-YAH!
Late to this, but this is fun!
A non-exhaustive frivolous list of men I won't date:
1)Poets
2)Actors
3)people who wear hats all the time (occasionally is acceptable)
4)people who go to church regularly
5)people that are uninterested in travel (seriously, what's wrong with those people?)
6)people who watch wrestling or have ever wrestled
7)"ripped" dudes who spend a lot of time lifting weights
8)men who can't cook, don't like to cook, or (god forbid), want me to cook
9)people who can't spell or make routine grammatical mistakes
10)people who say stuff like "I could have done that" when looking at contemporary art
11)people who don't vote or make a point of not paying attention to politics/current events
12)people who are overly organized or anal about cleanliness, planning, money or picky about food
I used to have a prohibition against guys who follow sport, but I dated one and it wasn't so bad, so I guess that's off the list.
I so am not going to read all 319 comments, but I'm telling you people, as an old married woman with a boyfriend, these "I will not date" lists are a bad idea. Either you rule out people you might really like, or you end up embarrassing yourself by breaking your sworn public vows. Anyway, you know, people can and do change over time; it's the essential structure of character you want to look for, rather than its various mutable expressions.
For instance: I dated, and married, a devout Catholic. Who was so devout, in fact, that we held off on the p/v sex until our wedding night (yes, I know, she says, rolling her eyes). AND he was anti-abortion to boot (though not fervently so). I also dated and married an ROTC guy (same guy) who did and does believe fervently in the importance of national defense and who is a genuine patriot. A few years after I finished my PhD, I fell in love with a high school dropout.
Having said all that: no leftier-than-thou idiots who try to lecture me on feminism, no abusers, and no humorless creeps.
322: So that makes Winna's no-fiction rule especially cruel. You sit there as your dreams of happiness fade away forever, and think about all the goddamn Jane Austen novels you painfully but uselessly read, when you could have been surfing the internet for nude pictures of Osama's niece.
I knew a guy who scored once by impressing a girl by explaining Descartes' distinction between primary and secondary qualities. There's so kinky people out there.
The Devil and Commodity Fetishism in South America is apparently not that hard to understand if you have a solid background in marxist theory. Does a solid background in marxist theory impress chicks?
these "I will not date" lists are a bad idea
Only if you actually live by them. And I think the comments show that not many do.
Does a solid background in marxist theory impress chicks?
Only freshmen chicks.
The nonfiction-fiction ratio is enforced to oppressive degrees here in DC. Reading fiction won't get you chicks in this town, and it's even worse for cocktail party banter. Poetry's not even street legal.
Bitch, I'm a funny creep. So there's hope for me.
Regarding won't-date lists, for a guy to be short is like being flat for a woman. Lots of perfectly nice people are inflexible on those points.
How short is short? The short guys have to come from somewhere, so their short parents managed to find each other.
Flat women look better in current fashions anyway.
It should be noted that John Emerson is not as short or as fat as his self-descriptions would lead one to believe.
these "I will not date" lists are a bad idea
Only if you actually live by them. And I think the comments show that not many do.
yeah. many of the non-physical attributes i would probably be willing to bend on, given the circumstances. as for the physical stuff, it's not just me being bitchy and arbitrary, but them's the kind of guys i'm attracted to; i listed the physical traits more out of my past experience rather than what my ideal is.
Well, on this thread 6' is short.
When I was in Taiwan a woman dumped her 6' tall Chinese boyfriend for me because tall people scared her. She was 5'1", which would be normal in my family.
That was heaven. I should go back.
Howcome none of the ladies have put "those with small weiners" on their lists?
#337, yes, but then you've made some huge statement in public about not dating X, and then you turn around and date X and your friends mock you. Surely there are other things one would prefer to be mocked about.
#340, I just can't get into the idea that a guy who is hung up about flat-chested women is "perfectly nice." So I figure probably the same thing w/ women who are hung up on height for men. Though admittedly, being not terribly tall myself, there are very few men who are shorter than I am, and the ones who are are close enough to me in height that I can hardly justify refusing to date them on those grounds. Having never known someone who was an actual midget, I can't say whether or not I would date one. But I can't see why not, if he was a really interesting and cool guy.
One reason to wear clothes is to conceal areas of fatness. It's self-defeating, though, because at the key moment the fatness is discovered, ruining everything you'd painstakingly been building up to. Turning off the light helps maintain the illusion, but some find that suspicious.
your friends mock you
They do that regardless.
345: It's not the sort of thing that, um, comes up when deciding to date someone?
yes, but then you've made some huge statement in public about not dating X, and then you turn around and date X and your friends mock you.
Unless, of course, you've done it under a pseud.
Perhaps flatness and shortness are used as first excuses for not dating someone who's not exciting for some reason. But a lot of people do have that obsession. On singles ads, statistically it comes after alcoholism and smoking as a non (about 30%, IIRC).
I've known a couple of tall women who seemed to specialize in short guys, just for the fun of it.
345: How small is small? More annoying than small-to-average penes are the legions of guys constantly worrying about the adequacy of their dick size.
Standpipe: connexion, connexion, connexion!
I do think that most of these lists are bullshit. For various values of desperation and loneliness, most criteria disappear.
#351: Well, what people put in personals ads is a different kettle o' fish entirely. There, I think people engage in the most rampant stereotyping, and I think it's counterproductive (which only goes to buttress my anti-list bias): I had great luck with personals, mostly I think b/c of preferring men who had some actual content to their ads rather than just focusing on tit size and weight (and b/c my own ad was more about content than my tits or how tall the guy had to be).
#348: Sure, but do you want them mocking you and by extension, the person you are dating over your dating criteria? Not me, man.
I could never date someone who believes in Creationism or Scientology.
335- It would only be cruel if someone were toiling through fiction to impress me or chicks in DC. Presumably the guys in DC know to read Foreign Affairs to pick up the ladies instead of poetry.
Creationism is the one true science. Only once you've accepted that the earth is 6000 years old and plate tectonics is a lie of the secularist scientist cabals will you truly be free.
Good ones Becks. That's absolutely firm for me too.
I think I'd have a hard time dating a Mormon too, but Scientology would be beyond the pale.
Scientology would be a tough one, admittedly. Although my bf *does* get a lot of scientologist junk mail b/c he used to stay at their hotel when he'd visit LA. He says it's a really nice place and surprisingly cheap, if you don't take into account the psychic cost of being on their mailing list.
One of my best friends in high school--very very smart girl, in AP bio class with me--surprised the hell out of me by saying that in fact she didn't believe in evolution. You really never know.
345: It's not the sort of thing that, um, comes up when deciding to date someone?
345: How small is small? More annoying than small-to-average penes are the legions of guys constantly worrying about the adequacy of their dick size.
A high school classmate and still friend of my wife's dated a guy in their class who had a micropenis. IIRC, my wife said the friend likened intercourse with him to being tickled. Fortunately, his tongue was of normal length.
One of my high school classmates also had this condition (I know this because, bizarrely enough, our all-male swim class was conducted in the nude). I saw him and his wife at a 20-year reunion. Needless to say, I did not inquire whether he had, um, outgrown this condition.
"Admiral Stockdale gets 4 measly comments (till now) and this thread just keeps spinning."
If I commented on that thread, I'd have to point out that a) all that got endless coverage when he was the bloody candidate for Veep, and b) some of actually read the NY Times Magazine on our own, so telling us that we ought to read a post that tells us nothing we don't perfectly well know may not be the best phrasing.
But that would be all bitchy and wrong, so I didn't post on that thread. (Haven't forgotten watching the SNL sketch when it was live, either.) You kids.
I'm not biting on polyamory, either, but there are a variety of conventions of hundreds of people every year, and they're not about having sex, either. Many folks have been together for two, three, four decades. I do agree that it takes a special kind of emotional maturity, self-knowledge, and ability to communicate, particularly about one's emotions, to make it worth. But there are, in fact, at least several thousand people who manage it, as of the last time I looked, about five years or so ago (I've not been other than either single or monagamous in about twenty years, myself). See, I didn't comment on that, either.
"Summing up everything I've learned about myself in this thread: I am a narcissistic neo-Marxist businessman and in my spare time I am a snob about genre fiction."
And you're not defensive. Only other people are. And you never imagine that disagreement is being called names.
"He and I go way back you could say, but I think we're enemies now, or something."
Complete news to me. But I often suppress the memory of my having been a jerk to someone. It makes life so much easier. (Otherwise I obsess about it shortly after, and forever after.)
9 and 11 in 333 are utterly sensible.
"...these 'I will not date' lists are a bad idea."
They're useful for gaining insight into the minds of the writer. Beyond that, I've been trying to gently suggest the downside.
"...people can and do change over time; it's the essential structure of character you want to look for, rather than its various mutable expressions."
Just so. This may become clearer with greater life experience, but I hate being agist.
"Lots of perfectly nice people are inflexible on those points."
You're saying they're firm or hard, then?
"The short guys have to come from somewhere, so their short parents managed to find each other."
I didn't mention when I mentioned, again, that I was 5' 4", that I was distinctly the tallest of my birth nuclear family when I got there.
"It should be noted that John Emerson is not as short or as fat as his self-descriptions would lead one to believe."
It's possible I exaggerate some things from time to time, myself. As I said, I believe in the wisdom of under-stating, and attempting to pleasantly surprise people, rather than going the other way.
"...as for the physical stuff, it's not just me being bitchy and arbitrary, but them's the kind of guys i'm attracted to...."
How might this implication of the possible immutability of physical attraction connect to discussion of, say, older men being physically attracted to younger women? Or not attracted to women with certain characteristics? I'd like to see a Grand Theory, myself.
"Howcome none of the ladies have put "those with small weiners' on their lists?"
Insert joke about Matt. But there's yet another test I'd fail. I'm content to know that I have a clue as to what to do with it, and other body partys, instead.
"Turning off the light helps maintain the illusion, but some find that suspicious."
Have you tried putting their eyes out?
Walk was good, by the way; I feel much better.
(I know this because, bizarrely enough, our all-male swim class was conducted in the nude)
Whaaaa???? Catholic School, I take it.
345: because height works as a decent guide, although of course I am the exception.
I really do look like Gimli. Used to look like Frodo when I was dating. When I was thin, getting laid wasn't a problem, even 6 ft tall women would take a chance that I would be grateful and generous on a one night stand. Dating and relationships were limited to those my own size, which shows this damn thread is more about accessorizing than romance.
Darn if I hadn't watched White Palace with Sarandon and Spader just this morning, about a Catholic waitress and Jewish banker.
Fall OTOH, is about a NYC cabby (tho he is working on his novel, and talks like it) and a supermodel.
"Well, what people put in personals ads is a different kettle o' fish entirely."
151, 162, 168, to 355, as youse guys like to say.
361: body parts, not "partys." Never been to one of the latter.
Ok, the "height is a rough indicator of dick size" thing is SO not true.
"Ok, the "height is a rough indicator of dick size" thing is SO not true."
I confess I am no expert, it was a guess. Apparently wrong. And straight.
363: mildly on-topic, but I think James Spader is so fucking hot. I don't even know what it is about him, not really his appearance even, but something about the way he speaks.
One of my best friends in high school--very very smart girl, in AP bio class with me--surprised the hell out of me by saying that in fact she didn't believe in evolution.
Eek. People who don't believe in evolution, or who are seriously religious -- no way. Atheists are preferable, of course. My wife told me on our second date that she was an atheist. So was (am) I! Given how few people in the U.S. call themselves outright atheists, I guess God must have brought us together.
Actually, my best friend is seriously religious and voted for Bush in 2004, despite my pleas. I'm afraid to ask whether he believes in evolution. And since he's a guy and we're both straight the "hotness" criterion isn't relevant. So I suppose if I were attracted to a woman in other ways, maybe I could overlook even such horrific flaws as voting for Bush and believing in the invisible man in the sky. So never mind what I said in the previous paragraph. I suppose with the right person, almost any otherwise-fatal characteristic can be countenanced. (Mary Matalin and James Carville have always amazed me, though. Are they both really great in bed, or what? How can a rabid Democrat marry a rabid Republican?)
Last "titty" discussion also led to a brief exchange on the difference between "lay" and "lie," which reminds me that last night Mr. B. asked if our bed was big enough for Ben w-lfs-n to occupy it along with both of us.
"I really do look like Gimli."
When I was a teen, I was told quite a few times that I resembled Jesus. I was entirely thin until I started puffing in middling-to-late-twenties. I was also frequently compared to Richard Dreyfuss from early 20s until many years later (as he was then, silly). Now I apparently resemble Gimli, which I'm not entirely thrilled about; may try to work on that this year. The one I really didn't care for I won't repeat, because I really did think it was out of line; I'm about 150 pounds thinner than that. (I don't have a scale and haven't used one in some years, but it's definitely still noticeably under, I dunno, at least 275, anyway; still extremely uncomfortable, to be sure.) Ailments such as gout, and heart disease, can interfere with exercise, although they're also highly encouraged by being over-weight, of course. Circularity. Being unable to afford much choice in diet also isn't helpful.
Digressing, one of the few things I didn't like about Elijah Wood's Frodo is that he had an essentially non-stop expression on his face strongly suggesting to me that he was badly constipated. There was considerably less variance to this than I'd prefer. I had no problem with any of the other actors.
"When I was thin, getting laid wasn't a problem...."
Ditto. I also had a few taller lovers, including one about 6', but most were my height or shorter. It really is a deeply ingrained prejudice in our culture. Fat & short together truly cuts down on choice. (I'd have no problem believing there might be genetic factors involved as well as cultural dicta.) To repeat myself, short is not relevant when horizontal. Of course, not all of one's time is spent that way in the better relationships; just much of the time in some.
Whaaaa???? Catholic School, I take it.
I would never have gone to a Catholic school. Nope, public school in Chicago.
Mr. B. asked if our bed was big enough for Ben w-lfs-n to occupy it along with both of us.
My wife and I on one occasion had both of us, our daughter (about 5 at the time), our German Shepherd, and three cats sleeping in our bed. It was a tad cramped. We stopped letting the dog sleep on the bed after that.
I too have been compared to Dreyfus (in "Jaws"). McManus?
I'll never trust Carville again, and the other guys shouldn't trust Matalin. They're skilled mercenaries.
[S]hort is not relevant when horizontal
That seems profoundly mistaken to me. I've gone short (5'1" or so) and tall (6'3" or so) and the physics of it all are very different. Within a certain range, I guess it's not really a noticeable different.
They're skilled mercenaries.
The term is "hooker."
The party has moved two slots up, guys. Nobody's here.
Frederick--Being very religious is not synonymous with being a Republican.
374:Never compared to Dreyfuss, but my crowd in the 70s would never see a Dreyfuss movie. I read, the rest stared at the colored lights on the stereo.
Was once compared to Woody Allen for my wit by someone who didn't watch Woody Allen movies. When I was thin, I was really thin. Bud Cort? Nah, better looking than Allen or Cort, broad shoulders.
I vas a manly midget.
The lady just said a shorter John Astin when he was in Addams Family. Whatever.
Gomez in The TV show of the 60s.
375: "...and the physics of it all are very different."
I didn't say that Procrustes suddenly applied. I wasn't addressing the physics; I was addressing the fact that there's no problem reaching relevant spots, such as there comparatively is when verticle, given sufficient difference in height. When horizontal, one is always bent over, anyway (not that I wish to give anyone the idea I think that's the only way to do it; bending of some sort is nonetheless generally involved; of course, maybe I've been doing it all wrong).
When horizontal, one is always bent over
In all honesty, I'm not quite sure what you mean.
I give up. I just can't keep up with the comments anymore.
We'll never know, given the activity in the other thread, but I wonder what Cala's position on oligomania is.
Frederick--Being very religious is not synonymous with being a Republican.
Bostoniangirl, I certainly agree. But unfortunately there is a strong correlation between the two. If only the irreligious were allowed to vote (no, I'm not advocating that, of course), we'd have a Democratic president and a large Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. (Look at statistics in 2000 and 2004, for example. People who rarely or never attend church voted overwhelmingly for Gore/Kerry. People who said they attended church weekly voted overwhelmingly for the moron.)
If more of the very religious people were like, say, Jimmy Carter, I'd have a lot more respect for religion. I realize that there are lots of good liberal folks who are religious. No doubt you are among them. Unfortunately, in this country, they're considerably outnumbered by the Bible-thumping yahoos.
"Unfortunately, in this country, they're considerably outnumbered by the Bible-thumping yahoos."
I think that's extemely unclear. In any case there are certainly tens of millions of religious liberals in America, of a variety of flavors of worship.
384: "In all honesty, I'm not quite sure what you mean."
I'll draw some stick figures. No, wait, just see a porn film. No, wait, all I mean is that if there isn't a fair amount of bending and twisting involved in having sex, you're doing it an unusual way. (Barely come to think of it, I have been with two women who did believe that the ideas was that they were just to lay there, flat and unmoving; now, if the other partner also does that, well, I dunno, I suppose one could bring in a crane&harness to move one of them back and forth, while both lay rigidly still and unmoving, and that could do something. Probably there's a whole subculture of those people. There always is.)
a fair amount of bending and twisting involved
Ah, okay. I get it.
I have been with two women who did believe that the ideas was that they were just to lay there, flat and unmoving
Actually, you're both supposed to do that, and hope for the best.
"Or are you just saying that I shouldn't be, and should perhaps switch to the template that's more to your liking?"
I would never be so arrogant so as to tell people they shouldn't gather together in pairs or groups for the purpose of making themselves and each other feel really really smart.
In all seriousness, Bob, is there some reason you keep drawing all sorts of nasty conclusions about my personality based on what gets my dick hard? Sorry to be so humorless about it, old chap; I get oddly defensive when people I barely know accuse me of being a self-satisfied intellectual prick.
I thought bob was just saying, "Hey, if your main criterion is intellectually curious, you're missing out on a lot of fun people who are smart, kind, and funny, just not interested in High Art & Literature & Political Intrigue."
At least until the rejoinder. You guys take all the fun out of generally pointless lists (all lists are trumped by t3h h0tt.)
Well, I meant a much more broad definition of "intellectually curious" than "intellectually pretentious". Basically, I meant people who actually get excited to Learn New Things about the world, whether New Things means salsa dancing or a trip to Prague or going to a Civil War museum or something you noticed about 15th Street that you never noticed before, and wow, that's pretty cool.
I find insufferable snobs to be mostly incurious themselves, not really eager to broaden their horizons or take in new information. But more specifically, I meant someone who could share in my enthusiasm for life generally, and not stare blankly when I come home saying, "Oh my god, I just heard this amazing conversation on the train that made me realize X."
388: Gary, thanks for backing me up.
387: Frederick, it's not that clear. (And Jimmy Carter is a real pro-lifer.) I believe that E.J. Dionne wrote a column about that data. It's true that people who never go to church are more often than not Democratically inclined. Likewise people who go to church at least once a week (and, I'm guessing even more so--for those who go more often) tend to be Republican. Those who go 2-3 times per month are pretty much evenly split.
My guess about some of those numbers is that in the exurban Evangelical churches there's not that much else on offer in the way of community, and the Evangelicals tend to offer one-stop shopping. The big evangelical church in Boston, Park Street, has a ton of other activities---including several sports teams.
Mainline Protestants and Catholics tend to be involved in the community in other ways. So they may spend less time in church. Robert Putnam did some case studies on this in his follow up research to "Bowling Alone."
Actually, you're both supposed to do that, and hope for the best.
No, no—think of England.
The fundamentalist-Republican alliance is a fairly recent phenomenon. It certainly wasn't monolithic when I was a kid, though I remember it beginning when two very liberal churches in Raleigh and Chapel Hill were expelled from the Southern Baptist Convention for not hating on teh ghey. My very liberal Baptist church in Durham voluntarily followed them out the door shortly thereafter.
The takeover of the SBC by the wackos and the ever-increasing politicization of it caused a pretty major schism.
As an asterisk, though, church attendance rates are somewhat higher for blacks than for whites, and despite a strong social conservative bent, that is an overwhelmingly Democratic constituency.
Catholics used to vote Democrat, but then apparently they all went insane and thought that when Pat Robertson said all Catholics were going to hell and idol worshippers, that he would make a great ally.
Catholics went 52-47 for Bush in 2004, which is not much different from the national split.
Frederick, it's not that clear. . . . It's true that people who never go to church are more often than not Democratically inclined. Likewise people who go to church at least once a week (and, I'm guessing even more so--for those who go more often) tend to be Republican. Those who go 2-3 times per month are pretty much evenly split.
Bostoniangirl, I don't doubt any of what you say is true (see, e.g., the guy below, who is quite happy about it all). How is that inconsistent with what I said? If very religious people skew toward Republicans, non-religious people skew toward Democrats, and those in between are about evenly split, that means that religious people collectively are predominantly Republican and non-religious people are predominantly Democratic. Of course, there are still very religious Democrats and atheistic Republicans. I certainly did not claim that there is a perfect correlation between religiosity and Republicanism. Humans are complex creatures, so few if any human attributes are perfectly correlated.
The guy I referred to above:
According to CNN exit poll data, those who attend church more than weekly made up 16% of 2004 voters, or 18.4 million voters, and they went for Bush by 63% to 35%, or by 11.6 million to 6.4 million, a difference of 5.2 million votes. However, those who never attend church, which equaled 15% of voters, or 17.3 million voters, went for Kerry by 64% to 34%, or by 11.1 million to 5.9 million, also a difference of 5.2 million votes.
This was much like the 2000 vote, when those who attended church more than weekly went for Bush by 63% to 36%, whereas Vice President Al Gore bagged those who never attended by 61% to 32%.
Ten percent of those who voted on November 2 claimed no religion at all. They made up nearly 15 million voters. Of those, 68%, or 10.2 million, voted for Kerry, but only 30%, or 4.5 million, voted for Bush—a Kerry advantage of 5.7 million votes.
In other words, religious voters who won the day for George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential contest were countered by non-religious Americans who tried to win the day for John F. Kerry.
http://www.gcc.edu/alumni/vvconcise/2004/Nov_11_04_Kengor.html
Phillip Roth is your primary source on women who just lie there. And so much else.
One says about orgasm: "It's not going to happen. Don't even try."
You know, I just read The Human Stain on the basis of the references here. Not so amazing. Bastards.
One says about orgasm: "It's not going to happen. Don't even try."
I guess it's bad to say that, then? Huh.
SCMT: What I recommended was "My Life as a Man". You may not like that one either, I suppose, but read it anyway. If you like it, great, and if not, screw you. Win-win from my point of view.
Silvana, don't say that the Philip Roth. Unless you want to be immortalized.
390: "Actually, you're both supposed to do that, and hope for the best."
I have known two different women who could reliably come just by focusing and thinking about it for a few minutes. Really. Impressive and useful skill. And one lover had a favorite trick of, on occasion, trying to provoke such tremendous arousal that, at just the right moment, she'd pull away and with not-quite-touching, making you come, having set it in motion; not the worst of tricks (and, no, I'm not talking about premature ejaculation). Teasing is a most excellent part of the game. Timing and tension, people, timing and tension.
I also blogged about a skience experiment on orgasm and brain patterns, a few months ago, which required women who could do just that, come by thinking, and that's all, since the MRI machine wouldn't allow for movement. So it's not, in fact, super-duper rare, although it's relatively rare. Ah, here we go. (See what you miss when you don't read my blog? And memorize every back entry! It will be on test, people!
As I said, sex is essentially mostly all in the mind. (Not that mind and body can be distinguished easily from each other.) (Vaguely related post.
393: "I find insufferable snobs to be mostly incurious themselves, not really eager to broaden their horizons or take in new information."
Good observation, which means "I agree." And generally most highly strongly share the same prejudice. But others don't. (One of the more amazingly bizarre (for an extremely long list of reasons beyond the one thing I'm about to mention) roommates I ever had, had, so far as I could tell, only the following interests: watching tv, particularly Oprah and Dr. Phil; reading self-help books; adding to her guinea pig enclosure; drawing pictures of That Actor she'd been obsessing about for years, including sending thousands of dollar's to his theatre project; sleeping; and going to the grocery store. She'd sold off most of the fiction she once read. She had no friends, and otherwise never went out. She was unemployed, having quit her job working with computers, but took a gardening position, which she quit after two days, because it was hard.
And if I ever brought up any subject other than the above, she'd get mad and tell me to quit boring her with pointless and tedious comments or information of no interest whatever.
Not that she was screwed up, or something. Though it was a bit of a relief to observe someone far more fucked up than me.
396: "fundamentalist"
Not that I think you disagree, but just to emphasize: "fundamentalist" =! "religious."
Neither does "Christian."
402: "I guess it's bad to say that, then? Huh."
If it's true -- and it's hardly uncommon for many women and men both -- though how easily it happens for us, or not, and how much difficulty is an exceptional, or frequent, or constant, unending, thing, of course varies widely -- it's certainly the right thing to say. Honesty is better than faking, if it's a decently honest relationship.
Then there's the common effects of most anti-depressants, and a variety of other medications. Plus all sorts of reasons, physical and mental, can cause inability to orgasm, whether short-term, frequent, or never-ending. This is why sex therapists exist. Gotta admit a problem before being able to work on it, of course.
If your partner can't understand this, and work with it, you may not have the right partner. (A bit of understanding of how it works in the other direction is also helpful, to be sure.)
I must get around to getting The Plot Against America from the library. (It is alternative history science fiction, after all.)
Frederick--I guess that (and this is anecodtal evidence, so take it for what it'as worth) I know a lot of people who consider themselves very religious but don't (outside of Holy Week) go to church more than once a week. And sometimes they miss a Sunday to play golf or go away for the weekend.
I think if those people as quite religious. If your definition of being very religious means that you have a perfect church attendance, then I think that your definition is too narrow. This is the trouble when sociologists etc. try to quantify religious belief.
women who could reliably come just by focusing and thinking about it for a few minutes.
I once had an orgasm listening to the statue scene finale from Mozart's Don Giovanni. I was driving at the time, which was kind of a problem. It's only happened the once, alas.
"It's only happened the once, alas."
Practice makes perfect. Talking can also induce one, for some people, when done right. So can only a very little bit of touching, relatively speaking, and a lot of almost touching. There's rather more effort involved than in Going Right To The Basics, to be sure.
One of the past lovers who could come by thinking of it tended to come whenever watching a certain other lover play guitar. The focus on his hands, as well as who he was, was what did it for her.
She was sweet. Gained 300 pounds as of when I last looked, since our main involvement was back in 1977, but who am I to talk? And she was the only lover I ever had who would apologize, mid-orgasm, for coming uncontrollably rather than waiting for mine. Very polite, but hardly necessary. Guys, I think I can safely generalize, tend to take that as a compliment; a feature, not a bug.
Bostoniangirl, I agree. No doubt the pollsters try to "objectively quantify" religiosity by frequency of church attendance, but that is an imperfect measure. No doubt there are, for example, people who accompany their family to church every week but aren't themselves religious. (They might do it to make their more religious spouses happy, because they think it's important to expose the kids to religion even if they don't really believe it themselves, etc.) Then there are others who consider themselves very religious but rarely, if ever, attend church. Dubya, for example, claims to be very religious (sincerely? insincerely?), but Amy Goodman and others have written that he doesn't belong to a congregation and only attends church occasionally to get a photo op out of it. All that said, I suspect that however you quantify religiosity, the least religious people, on average, are also the most Democratic/liberal people. (Usual disclaimers about this being a generalization, not universally true, I'm sure you and millions of others are both fine liberal people and religious, etc.)
Frederick, I don't consider myself terribly liberal--only in George W. Bush's America. I'd like to have a decent universal healthcare system, better stewardship of the environment, basic labor protections and all that. BUT I aspire to send any kids I might have to proivate school. And I'm very conservative and bourgeouis about a lot of things. I'm big on historic preservation and can't stand a lot of the liberals I grew up around.
I once had an orgasm while listening to the 'vieni, vieni' crescendo in the love duets from Madame Butterfly. Of course, I was masturbating at the time.
I once had an orgasm listening to the statue scene finale from Mozart's Don Giovanni. I was driving at the time, which was kind of a problem.
And that problem was . . . ?
What? Has no one else here ever masturbated while driving?
I'm very conservative and bourgeouis about a lot of things. I'm big on historic preservation and can't stand a lot of the liberals I grew up around.
OK, I take it all back then. :-) I personally don't consider myself all that liberal, but given how far this country's policies have lurched to the right, and that if you oppose all of that you're called "liberal," then damned right I'm a liberal. Eric Alterman observed in The Nation a while back that he didn't think of himself as being all that liberal, in the abstract, but "liberal" these days has come to mean "non-insane." So if you think that aggressive war is bad, making almost everyone on Earth hate us is bad, we should do something about global warming instead of ignoring it, massive deficits caused by massive tax cuts for the rich are bad, torture is bad, Bush is an unbelievably horrible president, and so forth, you're both non-insane and "liberal."
What? Has no one else here ever masturbated while driving?
I don't drive all that great when giving it my full concentration, so I keep the two activities separate. Besides, it would get pretty messy, as well as embarrassing if anyone noticed that big stain on my pants when I got out of the car. Now there was that time when at 3 a.m. at age 14 or so, waiting at a bus stop, I moronically accepted some guy's offer of a ride home, and once I got in he asked me a bunch of weird questions and then started masturbating himself. Luckily, he evidently wasn't John Wayne Gacy (yes, this was in Chicago) and he let me out of the car when I told him that uh, this was fine, he could just drop me off right here, thank you very much.
"Of course, I was masturbating at the time."
New thread! Songs to masturbate to!
"Has no one else here ever masturbated while driving?"
New thread! Things to do while masturbating!
"I personally don't consider myself all that liberal,"
I started when young from the liberal/somewhat-New-Left, but mostly as a "free-thinker." I've generally been on the liberal side, but with increasing irritation over the years at, and rejection of, many of the shibboleths of both many flavors of the left and of unthinking liberals, of whom there are as many as unthinking conservatives.
I've been saying since teenhood that I far prefer an intelligent disagreement than stupid agreement. And how will my ideas be challenged so I learn what's wrong with them if I don't try to find the best arguments against them?
So I had become pretty darnn eclectically middle-of-the-road (with a few radical predilections), I order my polices a la carte, thank you, not from either Column A or Column B (Do American Chinese restaurants still do that any more anywhere? I think that's an obsolete reference, like "dialing someone's number"), type, by 2000.
Although I never had a moment's hesitation in knowing what George Bush basically was -- and I basically had and have considerable respect for Al Gore (but I worked for John Anderson, even back in 1980, which meant temporarily signing up to be a Republican, which made me and my girlfriend the editorial cartoon of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer the next day, by luck of being in the same Capitol Hill precinct as Dave Horsey, but I digress) -- if anyone were to analyze my blog, they'd see that through 2002, and likely even a ways into 2003, I was almost always extremely moderate of tone, very respectful to the Office, and constantly explaining why this was this way and that was that way.
Which is why lots of liberal/lefty bloggers never ever blogrolled me, even when I'd been blogging long before them (although, of course, maybe it's also because I'm often a jerk, or for any number of other good reasons; but in a few specific cases, I know that's why, and I extrapolate that there must be more.) And I was often denounced for not denouncing George Bush more emphatically, and for sounding so damned moderate and even-handed. C'est la vie, but I'm not going to cut my opinions to please anyone else.
Somewhere in the run up to November, 2004, probably by summer, at least, if not spring, my head exploded, and I turned into the ranting mocker of the Administration I've not ceased to be. My Inner Sarcastic Master took control and was unleashed.
This led to a bunch of conservative bloggers who thought I was the soul of sensibility dropping me from their blog rolls; one thoughtful (really) conservative explained on his blog what a shame it was I'd lost my marbles, or words to that effect.
(This is one reason I'm inclined to be a bit forgiving of Andrew Sullivan, pissed off as he often made me in the past, and still does at times; but I'm looking for interesting thoughts, not agreeable ones; agreement, beyond a certain point, is boring -- explains a lot about me that I hold that view, doesn't it?)
Oh, well. Wasn't time to sit on any fence any more.
There are a variety of notions, conservative and liberal both, that I'm signed on for. I'm still perfectly a la carte. But if they come to round up liberals, I'll stand up.
391: Good Grief.
"Oddly defensive" about sums it up, Joe.
Yes, Joe, all my comments are subtle attacks on you and your personal qualities, and I suggest you study them for clues. Follow me to the other blogs I frequent, although I might not mention you by name, they all know who I am talking about. Watch for the anagrams.
Yes, Joe, all my comments are subtle attacks on you and your personal qualities, and I suggest you study them for clues. Follow me to the other blogs I frequent, although I might not mention you by name, they all know who I am talking about. Watch for the anagrams.
I guess that explains Bob's hitherto-engimatic "jam dry aloe" reference.
So much for that claim:
Your search - ("major delay" OR "jam dry aloe") "bob mcmanus" - did not match any documents.
