|
|
 |
anobody |
+ |
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Edited Tuesday, June 5, 2007 at 8:47 PM Self explanatory (I hope). I know it's been done to death (there's probably even a thread over on the official TACS forum), but since it was a topic on Adam's show this morning and I thought it was interesting, it seemed like a good topic for a thread. To get the ball rolling, here are a few of mine... - Smoking. For me, that'll take a ten to a three. - A stripper pole in your bedroom. On the surface, it seems like it'd be interesting, but I find it very off-putting. - Weird piercings and tats. They mentioned this one on Adam's show, and we already had a thread about it, but I think it bears repeating. Small earrings, and even bellybutton rings don't bother me (of course, they don't do anything for me either). When you start getting to things like too much ink (especially if it looks haphazard, sloppy and unplanned like graffiti on the wall of a bathroom stall), it bugs me. Anything that shows that a tattoo artist has been too close to the places I want to go (and especially something like a nipple ring or anything metally that might end up close to my junk) wiggs me out. - Just being too much of a pain in the ass. Again, something that they brought up on Adam's show, but this would include things like doing too much of Meg Ryan's "on the side" or something like that God-awful bullshit my mother and sister pull when they ask for their pizza 'well done'. - Acting too childish. Maybe that's not exactly what I mean, but here's an example of what I'm talking about - I've only encountered this once, and I've mentioned it here before, but one girl I dated physically covered her eyes and blocked her ears during scenes from The Sixth Sense and Blue Streak. There's just something disturbing to me about a 23 year old who can't take some ghosts and a few explosions (if this was 1899 instead of 1999, I might feel a bit different about that). *edit* An example from more recent experience - someone who is in their mid 20's but is obsessed with Harry Potter, and all of the Pixaresque cartoons. I could go on, but since I've probably already blathered for too long, I'll yield the floor to someone else. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Edited Tuesday, June 5, 2007 at 8:53 PM That was actually one that came up on Adam's show (and I'll definitely go with you there as well). *edit* You just reminded me of something else - putting slathering on makeup while driving like a maniac (not fast - just all over the road) and talking on your cell phone. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 at 8:58 PM - not liking dogs (must love dogs lolz) - having children and refusing to get rid of them —mandeemoo22 |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 at 9:41 PM - not liking dogs (must love dogs lolz In that vein... - having a snot nosed dog that is a bastard to Zona - confusing bait with real dogs —anobody |
|
|
|
|
rAnCIDsICk@!!! |
+ |
Tuesday, June 5, 2007 at 11:48 PM Chicks that go everywhere in their bare feet.
Nothing nastier then a female with gnarly feet. There was the chick named deserea that I knew back in high school
that had a crush on my friend.
We were over at his house during summer vacation clam baking his room with a steam
roller and we hear a car roll up.
We peek out the window and see it's her, she wasn't very attractive but
she was cool in a white trash way, we go to the door and she wants us to check out her new car.
Now mind you it's MID SUMMER IN PHX, easily about 117 outside.
I'm stepping on concrete thru my socks and burning the shit out my feet on his driveway.
we both run and sit on his little powerbox in the yard rubbing our feet when we both
notice she's just chilling on the ASPHALT in her bare feet just yapping away like she's doped on meth. Fucking nasty, we sat and talked for about 10 min. in this blistering heat.
I was stunned because you can cook an egg on the asphalt.
—rAnCIDsICk@!!! |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 5:51 AM
Edited Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 6:00 AM There are a couple types of deal breakers. The first one, you wouldn't even consider dating someone because of it, or if you were just casually dating them you'd break up. The second you'd end a marriage over. I don't even really see smoking or bad eyebrows as the former; they're very easily reversible if you wind up liking the person. As far as a marriage breaker goes, I'm pretty tolerant of just about anything; even someone who was mentally or physically abusive, if they genuinely wanted to work on their issues, wouldn't be a lost cause. Besides just general personality incompatibility, people can fix just about anything concerning themselves if they're motivated to. The only reason I can think of that I wouldn't date someone is if they were just being a general ass; showed up late, didn't seem interested in me, whatever. My only marriage deal breakr, which would obviously apply to dating as well, is wanting kids. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
TortillaFactory |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 6:45 AM A stripper pole in your bedroom. How many people have you actually dated that had this? This gives me the same feeling as many of the laws in Leviticus, namely: really? That's even common enough to be worth mentioning? —TortillaFactory |
|
|
|
|
pookie |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 6:52 AM Any kind of abuse is a deal-breaker for me. I'm very old and I've known a lot of abusive people and none of them have ever changed, even with counselling. Life's too short to let yourself be abused. —pookie |
|
|
|
|
000 |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 6:59 AM crazy nasty stretch marks on the tummy from crappin out kids!!
and of course smoking!
—000 |
|
|
|
|
jezebel |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 7:02 AM 1. Staying until morning.
2. Being short.
3. Bad breath. Or BO.
4. Snooping. (I don't even have anything to hide, seriously, but how annoooooooooying.)
5. Being clingy. —jezebel |
|
|
|
|
uncledave |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 7:18 AM 1. Bitching to me about my friends
2. Crying during intercourse
3. Unexpectedly finding out 'she' had a penis —uncledave |
|
|
|
|
stefanie |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 9:09 AM 1. Staying until morning.
2. Being short.
3. Bad breath. Or BO.
4. Snooping. (I don't even have anything to hide, seriously, but how annoooooooooying.)
5. Being clingy. —jezebel fuck —stefanie |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 9:10 AM How many people have you actually dated that had this? This gives me the same feeling as many of the laws in Leviticus, namely: really? That's even common enough to be worth mentioning? Absolutely it is. I've only had the misfortune of dating one woman with one, but if you look at women in the ~26-34 age range, they're not entirely uncommon (as in maybe a few percent). Companies market them as some kind of bullshit exercise tool and claim that they're good for cardio. I think they're more targeted for young housewives who have had kids, but the one I dated was never married, never had kids, and was just a little nutty.
Now mind you it's MID SUMMER IN PHX, easily about 117 outside. To give a bit more context to that - when it's past ~110, Zona can't walk across the asphalt without hot-stepping. I don't even really see smoking or bad eyebrows as the former; they're very easily reversible if you wind up liking the person. The thing is - there are something like 3 billion women in the world. In the US, maybe it's only around a hundred million. Also, you don't even have to get married - it's optional. I think you can afford to be a little picky. The only reason I can think of that I wouldn't date someone is if they were just being a general ass; showed up late, didn't seem interested in me, whatever. Doesn't being physically or mentally abusive qualify as being an ass, though? My only marriage deal breakr, which would obviously apply to dating as well, is wanting kids. This reminds me of another one Danny brought up (and one that I agree with) - a woman, past a certain age (say mid-to-late 20's), who absolutely doesn't want kids. It's not that I want kids (at least, not any time soon), it just worries me a little. crazy nasty stretch marks on the tummy from crappin out kids!! The kid would be a deal breaker for me, but stretch marks, in and of themselves, don't bather me in the slightest (at least, within reason; I don't mean in the beached whale sense). My ex-wife was very well endowed and every once in awhile, she'd get upset about having stretch marks - which was funny because I never really noticed them in the first place (they were very subtle). One time, she got upset that I didn't think it was a big deal so she tried to show them to me. I look, and stare, but can't see them - which only made her more upset. We went through about three rounds of that before I finally broke out the jeweler's loop and saw these slightly discolored streaks that I never noticed before (or really since). Even so, if you told her you could make them go away for a million dollars, she'd figure out a way to pay it. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 9:17 AM >>I think you can afford to be a little picky. How much would it suck to miss out on the greatest woman for you in the world just because she happened to be a smoker when you met her? Lame. >>Doesn't being physically or mentally abusive qualify as being an ass, though? Yes. If they were being an ass in that manner, or any manner, when I met them, I wouldn't date them. However, if it were something they repressed that didn't come out until we were serious, I'd stay with them while they worked on it, if that's what they wanted to do. If not, we'd break up. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
TortillaFactory |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 9:39 AM I've only had the misfortune of dating one woman with one, but if you look at women in the ~26-34 age range, they're not entirely uncommon (as in maybe a few percent). So have you been doing studies on this, or what? —TortillaFactory |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 9:44 AM
Edited Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 9:46 AM No, Liz - I haven't done studies. I have friends whose wives have a pole, or they have a friend whose wife has a pole, or they've run into it themselves. How much would it suck to miss out on the greatest woman for you in the world just because she happened to be a smoker when you met her? Lame. Meh. When I was younger, I might have agreed. Now that I've got a little more experience under my belt, I don't think that way any more. Just at ASU alone, there are more than fifty-thousand people. Around half of those are women. A fair number are at a reasonable age for me to date, and would be at least passably compatible with me. Even if things would only be great with 0.01% of women on campus, that still leaves me with a few choices, and I guarantee at least one of those wouldn't smoke. When you realize that I'm not in any way restricted to ASU, it's safe to say that there are at least hundreds of women who I'm likely to come into contact with who would be pretty great in every way and not smoke. Also - being a smoker when I met her would actually make her not the greatest woman for me in the world. if it were something they repressed that didn't come out until we were serious My understanding is that that's fairly common among abusers. Start out setting the hook and seeming perfect, then once they've got you on their line, they let the bad guy out - but they're sorry about that and didn't mean it. Lather, rinse, repeat. I'd stay with them while they worked on it, if that's what they wanted to do. If not, we'd break up. What's sad about that is that I guarantee that, being young, attractive, and female, you've got significantly more options than I do, and you really don't have to tolerate that kind of bullshit. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 10:19 AM >>would be at least passably compatible with me. Even if things would only be great with 0.01% of women on campus, that still leaves me with a few choices, and I guarantee at least one of those wouldn't smoke. I'm generally a "stick with what I've got even if it sucks" type of person, but even I don't want to settle for "passably compatible." Also, you seem to be assuming that you'd actually meet your three women whom you could marry. Are you seriously planning to audtion all 25,000 women at ASU? What if you don't meet those 3, but you do meet an equally good smoker, and you refuse to date her? Sure there's more than one person you could be happy with in the world, but what if you don't meet that person for another 30 years? You're going to miss out on 30 years of an awesome marriage with someone who quit smoking for you, because she once smoked? Again, laame. As far as tolerating abuse goes, I wouldn't believe him if he just said "oh sorry, won't happen again." He'd actually have to be in therapy working to fix the problem in order for me to stay. I just don't see the point in giving up on someone I'm deeply in love with who also loves me just because they've got issues they're willing to resolve. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
jezebel |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 10:39 AM stefanie, I'll reconsider the last four, but only for you, and only if you promise to leave before I wake up and I can call you steffers. Not because I think it's a cute nickname, but because I'd be punishing you for making me reconsider my list of dealbreakers. —jezebel |
|
|
|
|
pookie |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 10:48 AM My deal is that I couldn't really love someone who mistreated me. But that's the difference that between being twenty and being forty. As ano said: "When I was younger, I might have agreed. Now that I've got a little more experience under my belt, I don't think that way any more." -anobody Younger people tend to be more optimistic. Experience tends to inject realism into the equation, ie> therapy rarely wipes out inherent meanness and anger. In the rare cases that it does, it takes many, many years to make even the slightest improvement. By the time they come close to straightening out, you are over the feelings of being in love with them because you are tired of the abuse. I've had dozens of friends get married and subsequently divorced. The biggest reasons for divorce that I have seen is that one of them is abusive, an asshole, or both. It can apply to either gender. After years of putting up with the abusive/assholish behavior, they reach their saturation point and end it. I always ask if they knew their partner was that way before they got married. The answer, invariably, is "Yeah, I knew, but I thought they would change/improve, blah, blah, blah." Save yourself the wasted years of grief. My number one piece of advice is NEVER SETTLE. Unless you have extremely mitigating circumstances that forces you to take whatever mutant comes along, just don't settle. Personally, I'd rather be alone than with an asshole. And I made up my mind very early in life that when I was old enough to control my circumstances, that I would never tolerate any form of abuse. I have yet to encounter any girl on this board that has so little going for her in life that she should resort to an abusive relationship. Knock it off right now. —pookie |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Edited Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 10:58 AM By the time they come close to straightening out, you are over the feelings of being in love with them because you are tired of the abuse. Kinda sounds like Danny and Gretchen, doesn't it? Also - and this is important to remember - she (maybe sexist, but I'm just playing the odds) got into a relationship with an abusive guy because she liked him, and being abusive is part of who he was. If he actually managed to change that about himself, then she's probably not going to like him so much any more. The biggest reasons for divorce that I have seen is that one of them is abusive, an asshole, or both. It can apply to either gender. After years of putting up with the abusive/assholish behavior, they reach their saturation point and end it. I always ask if they knew their partner was that way before they got married. The answer, invariably, is "Yeah, I knew, but I thought they would change/improve, blah, blah, blah." In my case, it wasn't so much that either of us was abusive as that we were just at different places in our lives in terms of what we were expecting out of the relationship *but* we both knew before we got married. I'd rather be alone than with an asshole. It's not so bad to be alone - I should know, I've had plenty of experience. \ Also - I guarantee that a big part of why Pookie has such a great relationship is because she wouldn't settle for less. Thinking that way didn't leave her a spinster. Are you seriously planning to audtion all 25,000 women at ASU? No - of course not. What if you don't meet those 3, but you do meet an equally good smoker, and you refuse to date her? My point is simply that there are many choices. ASU was merely an example of a small population to give a rough idea of how many options there are even there. what if you don't meet that person for another 30 years? What if the world ends tomorrow? Realistically, if I was actually searching, I'd imagine that the over-under is that it would only take a year (at most). You're going to miss out on 30 years of an awesome marriage with someone who quit smoking for you, because she once smoked? That argument only makes sense if you imagine a very bad, but equally unlikely scenario. If I was randomly diffusing through people, bumping into one woman a day, and then hanging out with her all day based on chance alone, then 30 years might be realistic - but that's not how it works. There's selection in the sampling. I just don't see the point in giving up on someone I'm deeply in love with who also loves me just because they've got issues they're willing to resolve. I can only say that I'm glad that you don't want kids. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
pookie |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 11:06 AM Just because a woman doesn't want kids, it doesn't mean that there is something wrong with her. It's different for men. Pregnancy takes a huge toll on a woman's body. Also, for the most part, the woman has the main responsibility of caring for the children. Yes, there are some dads that are equally involved, but that is so rare that I've never known anyone that has that type of arrangement. Go to a grocery store midweek. You see moms having to negotiate, bargain, and plead with very loud, stubborn, unreasonable children of varying ages who want something they can't have. Not every woman wants to spend every day of her life for 18 years going through that. I don't think there is something wrong with a woman if she chooses to use her time and energy in other endeavors. That being said, I thought about having kids when I was younger, but health issues made it inadvisable to do so. I love kids and I'm always taking nieces, nephews, and children of friends to African Lion Safari, concerts, or ball games. I adore them and love spending time with them, but I'm glad I don't have the responsibility and expense 24/7 for nearly two decades. Now that I've been with some of these kids from birth to their twenties, I've seen many parents toil endlessly for their kids and give up everything for them, only to have their kids turn around and tell them "I hate your guts" just because their parents don't give them everything they demand. So, no, I don't think it's bad for a woman to not want a kid. It's a lifestyle choice like any other. —pookie |
|
|
|
|
pookie |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 11:14 AM "Also - I guarantee that a big part of why Pookie has such a great relationship is because she wouldn't settle for less." -anobaby Exactly. Everyone is always telling me that they want the kind of relationship that my husband and I have (we giggle like imbeciles, can't keep our hands off each other, love being together, can talk endlessly or just sit and read while intertwined). I always tell them that if they want that, then don't settle. It's as simple as that. I had lots of offers of marriage before my husband came along. I knew what I wanted and what I didn't want, so I didn't stay in a relationship if it didn't measure up. I'm still friends with all but one guy because I did love them and they loved me, but I/we recognized that loving someone does not mean that you will make happily compatible marriage mates. Some people are simply better suited as friends. —pookie |
|
|
|
|
TortillaFactory |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 11:30 AM I have friends whose wives have a pole, or they have a friend whose wife has a pole, or they've run into it themselves. Did you ever consider that your friend's wives/girlfriends/one-night stands might not be a representative sample? That more than a handful of non-prostitutes in the world actually have one sounds ridiculous to me - I think you must have experienced an unfairly weighted group. Or, your friends are big fat liars. I just found something bizarre and gross-looking in my Chinese food. I was about to just throw it away, when I realized that the strong broccoli smell that had been emanating from a dish that doesn't contain broccoli probably went a far way to explaining what it was. And it was, indeed, broccoli. But it looked seriously gross when I didn't know what it was. I don't know how this applies to relationships or dealbreakers, but I think there's probably a metaphor in there somewhere. If not, well, I guess someone putting something gross in my food would be a dealbreaker. —TortillaFactory |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 11:46 AM Jesus, Liz - what is your problem? This isn't Hammurabi's code - it's just a bullshit bit on a fansite. Did you ever consider that your friend's wives/girlfriends/one-night stands might not be a representative sample? Did you ever consider that just because something isn't in your experience, it might still exist? Of course I know my sample isn't representative (I am a scientist and I know a little bit about statistics, after all) There are huge error bars on my estimate. Nonetheless - I can say with confidence that it's not nearly as rare as you think. Also - in some of their minds, at least (and as I said) it's a weird form of exercise. Having one doesn't make you a whore (though it certainly is a bit of a red flag). —anobody |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Edited Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 12:03 PM Handball..drapes.. >>My point is simply that there are many choices. ASU was merely an example of a small population to give a rough idea of how many options there are even there. And my point is even in that small sample you're highly unlikely to meet your perfect 3 non-smoking women, so what makes you think you should pass up the smoker? I'm not saying you ought to marry her, but you could at least go out on one date and see what she's like. Especially if we hypothesize that she would've been perfect for you. I mean seriously, wtf? Also, your "but I'm not looking for anyone right now" support is a little weird. If you don't feel like dating anyone, you're not going to no matter how great they are. In addition, I wouldn't expect you to go on a quest to find this perfect woman; hence why it could take you a long time to bump into her naturally. Even with "selection in the sampling" I doubt you meet a potential date even every day. Even if you met two new women every day, it would take you 11 years to get through 1/3 of the ASU population. I'm pretty sure Oprah had some women on one time saying how nifty having a pole in your house is. I've seen it lots of times on TV, anyway. And as far as the world goes - according to Wiki, "Miss Pole Dance World" focuses on the art and athletics of pole dancing, and does not involve any nudity or stripping. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
jezebel |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 12:06 PM I hate Oprah. Probably more than anyone in the whole world. —jezebel |
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 12:31 PM hating oprah is probably a deal breaker because seriously, what a woman! —mandeemoo22 |
|
|
|
|
jezebel |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 12:37 PM No, liking Oprah is a huge major dealbreaker. I'm serious about this one, I won't change it even for stefanie. —jezebel |
|
|
|
|
John Lennon |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 1:04 PM Steadman only stays with her because she's his beard. And regarding smoking, I think a lot of guys like girls who smoke because they imagine the cig to be their penis, they think "oral fixation", it's like there's a giant neon sign on the girl's forehead with an arrow pointing down that says "BJ's". Another thing, are we talking about cigars or weed or just regular nicotine cigs, because I can tolerate cigar smoke. But still, smoking wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me as long as she went outside with it or didn't do it around me. Not doing it around me is just as good as not doing it at all. I don't like having my clothes smell like smoke and that's why I generally don't go out with my friends to the bars, because they all smoke a lot when they're drinking. Dealbreakers: Not shaving her love triangle if I asked her to.
Getting jealous of my car, not understanding the pride I put in owning it.
Not taking my word for things/being unconfident about herself.
Building me up too much (giving me too many compliments or making me feel too good about myself, I can't handle someone who is always making me feel good. I want to feel good just being around them, not just from what they say. I think I would end up feeling like they were just kissing my ass and that would make me nervous, like "why are they being so nice to me?".)
Trying to one up me on how bad their life has been/trying to make me feel sorry for them. I'm the only one who's allowed to suffer in my relationship, how dare they! Don't they know I'm the King of Pain? :)
Someone who refuses to get help for their depression/abuse history/etc.
Someone who can't slow down and be with me and listen to me, who's always rushing around and flighty.
Someone who has a prevailing emotion (anger/sadness/etc.) all the time.
Someone who just wants the cock.
Someone who doesn't accept reality on its terms and rationalizes why they're going to do things their way even though they know that that is only going to end up leading to unhappiness.
Someone who blames me for the way their life is/turns out/their emotions.
Someone who wants me to stay the same person I was when I started the relationship and won't let me just be and go inside myself when I need to, and won't understand that I'm not trying to shut her out when I need time to myself.
Someone who continually tries to baby me or coddle me because of my cancer.
Someone who always tells instead of asks. Example: ("We're going to dinner at _Shut Up and Eat_" rather than "I was thinking of _Shut Up and Eat_ for dinner, but where would you like to go?"
Someone who makes snarky comments about other people, especially other women, or asks what I think of them, trying to draw me into saying something so she can get hurt or mad at me.
Someone who cries during sex or calls me "daddy" or "brother".
Someone who starts speaking in tounges and believes in psychics and horoscopes and all that crap, I mean truly believes in their "power" and shit.
Someone who doesn't read.
Someone who isn't comfortable talking about sex, in public.
Someone who is scared of letting me see her naked.
Someone who always wants me to pay for her drinks and meals. I'm not Sugar Daddy Warbucks for fuck's sake!
Someone who feels the need to call and "check up on me". Ease up, moms!
Someone who tells me I have to be in by a certain time.
Someone who withholds for any reason. The pussy isn't for punishment.
Someone who is a racist, not jokingly but a true racist. Like one time my mom said I shouldn't have kids with a black female because they wouldn't have any racial identity. That kind of shit.
Someone who is a lesbian but puts the pussy on hold to give the cock a whirl and doesn't know what she wants, fingercuffs or what.
Someone who is heavy into BDSM or being spit on or vomited on or shit on or called names during sex.
Someone who makes fun of me in front of my friends and doesn't care how I feel about it.
Someone who can't laugh at themselves.
Someone who always has to have a structured day and can't cut loose.
Someone who keeps asking loaded questions (Do I have stretch marks, etc.)
A person in recovery, they would have to have at least a 3 year track record of staying clean before I would even consider dating them.
Someone who plays around on the side and expects me to be cool with that kind of "open relationship".
Someone who doesn't make any attempt to understand why I might get mad at them for doing things.
Someone who is emotionally empty.
—John Lennon |
|
|
|
|
TortillaFactory |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 1:07 PM Jesus, Liz - what is your problem? You, maybe. Since these aren't verifiable facts, there's no point in arguing it any further. I agree with chix0r at this point. Handball, drapes. Someone who just wants the cock. I can see how this would be a dealbreaker for Drake. —TortillaFactory |
|
|
|
|
John Lennon |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 1:09 PM Someone who says "fuck me daddy" when I'm doing her. Someone who starts swearing and yelling at me when they get drunk. Someone who doesn't accept the fact that I like to drink sometimes. Someone who disses the way I fuck them. Someone who won't tell me what they want in bed. Don't give me a treasure map to your pleasure place without any lines on it! —John Lennon |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 1:11 PM >>Not doing it around me is just as good as not doing it at all. I disagree. They still smell and taste like smoke. Ew. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
John Lennon |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 1:11 PM Relationships to me aren't just about fucking (I'm sure you and chix0r will heartily disagree with me on that one). To me a good relationship is one where both people respect each other and accept that they are two different people and want different things in life, and won't always be able to give each person what they need, but while they're together, will try their hardest to make the other person satisfied as long as they are in that person's life. —John Lennon |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Edited Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 1:23 PM No. I don't like the taste of mint. And their clothes, hair, skin, car, house, etc. will still smell like smoke. In related news, my boyfriend has decided to start using Axe deodorant. Wtf? —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
000 |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 1:49 PM above is true, also the stink while kissing comes from their lungs as well, and there is no way to cover that up. apparently its impossible to invent cigarettes that smell good. —000 |
|
|
|
|
TortillaFactory |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 1:51 PM It's hard to invent much of anything that smells good when you set it on fire. I guess some people like incense, but it takes all kinds. —TortillaFactory |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 4:36 PM Handball..drapes.. You're right - why am I bothering? my point is even in that small sample.. Totally missing the point. Here it is in simple terms - in that small sample, there still are at least a few people. In the general population (which is much, much bigger than ASU), there would be many, many more potential matches. Even with "selection in the sampling" I doubt you meet a potential date even every day. Even if you met two new women every day, it would take you 11 years to get through 1/3 of the ASU population. You totally missed the point again. Because of being selective you don't have to go through 1/3 of the ASU population - most people you can just rule out immediately (or they'll just rule you out). Also, your "but I'm not looking for anyone right now" support is a little weird That wasn't support. Also, I said I'm not looking to get married any time soon. If you don't feel like dating anyone, you're not going to no matter how great they are. Where did you get that idea? There are plenty of reasons to date besides just trying to get married. You, maybe. You're half-right there. You have a problem with me, so no matter what I say, you'll find fault in it. Since these aren't verifiable facts Presumably there are statistics out there somewhere if someone bothered to look. there's no point in arguing it any further. As if there was in the first place. I agree with chix0r at this point. Oh you mean except for this part - I'm pretty sure Oprah had some women on one time saying how nifty having a pole in your house is. I've seen it lots of times on TV, anyway. And as far as the world goes - according to Wiki, "Miss Pole Dance World" focuses on the art and athletics of pole dancing, and does not involve any nudity or stripping. I like how you picked out the two words that work for you while missing a whole paragraph that contradicts you. Handball, drapes. You're right - except you've confused the player and the drapes. I disagree. They still smell and taste like smoke. Ew. Exactly. Wait a minute - weren't you the one who was just dissing me for nixing smokers? WTF? Dealbreakers: Not shaving her love triangle if I asked her to.... .... [four pages later] .... Someone who is emotionally empty. For someone who seems to struggle so much with dating, you have a huge litany of deal breakers. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 4:51 PM I got your points. They just did absolutely nothing in the way of refuting mine. >>Here it is in simple terms - in that small sample, there still are at least a few people. In the general population (which is much, much bigger than ASU), there would be many, many more potential matches. It doesn't matter how many people there are - it matters how many you're likely to meet. Of course, the more there are the more you're likely to meet, but that is addressed here: >>Because of being selective you don't have to go through 1/3 of the ASU population - most people you can just rule out immediately (or they'll just rule you out). Again, the point is even if you meet 2 a day, that's 33 years just to have a chance to rule them out. >>Where did you get that idea? "if I was actually searching" I wouldn't want to date a smoker, but I wouldn't not date them just because they smoked. If they were a great person, why would I miss out on a chance to date them just because they smoke? It's ridiculous. Smoking is something which can easily be stopped if it gets serious. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 5:06 PM I got your points. Then why did your responses show no evidence of that? "if I was actually searching" Just for context - If you don't feel like dating anyone, you're not going to no matter how great they are. - Chix0r Where did you get that idea? - Ano There are plenty of reasons to date besides just trying to get married. - Ano Maybe I was unclear - where did you get the idea that I don't feel like dating anyone (I'd think my second line would have made that obvious). Again, the point is even if you meet 2 a day, that's 33 years just to have a chance to rule them out. Do you have any idea how little time it takes to rule out a person? With just a glance, you can eliminate huge swaths of people. Five minutes of conversation will get rid of even more. In principal, you could go through a population the size of ASU like that in no time - at worst, on the order of weeks, not years. I wouldn't want to date a smoker, but I wouldn't not date them just because they smoked. If they were a great person, why would I miss out on a chance to date them just because they smoke? It's ridiculous. Smoking is something which can easily be stopped if it gets serious. But why go in knowing in advance that you're gonna be repulsed by the idea of kissing somebody? In your scenario, at best, you're asking someone to make an extremely difficult and significant life change (and hoping that they're not gonna resent you for it). There are so many people in the world, that you can eliminate all smokers and still have billions to chose from. With odds like that, you can afford to be a little picky. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 6:17 PM >>Maybe I was unclear - where did you get the idea that I don't feel like dating anyone You said "if I was actually searching." You have no idea how much it pains me to repeat your horrible grammar..again. >>In principal, you could go through a population the size of ASU like that in no time - at worst, on the order of weeks, not years. Unfortunately, I don't think you're going to hold a "date Scott" contest. Therefore, it's highly unlikely you'll accomplish this task in a few weeks. In fact, it's more likely that in the natural course of your interaction with people at the college, you won't meet most of them. Making it even more imperative that you give everyone you meet a fair shot. >>at best, you're asking someone to make an extremely difficult and significant life change (and hoping that they're not gonna resent you for it). You're assuming that everyone who smokes wouldn't give it up for the world. My mom was a smoker for 12 years. She stopped when she became pregnant, and she hasn't cared since. >>There are so many people in the world, that you can eliminate all smokers and still have billions to chose from. Again, I'm not holding auditions. I don't have billions to choose from. My only choices are the people with whom I actually come into contact. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
plurry |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Edited Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 7:09 PM ugly, bad nose, bad teeth, kids, little dog(s), more than a little overweight, slothfulness, 40 or over, takes religion, astrology, tarot cards, reincarnation and/or their superstitions seriously, holistic medicine, tats that aren't discreet, multiple piercings, excessive amounts of jewelry (especially gold), refers to self as a hippie, nail biting, balding, frizzy hair, missing limb, missing breast(s), pre-op, post-op, slutty behavior aimed at anyone but me unless it's in jest, lack of cleanliness, poor taste in clothing, country music, personality based on hip hop culture, excessive make-up, excessive body hair, chronic bad breath and/or poor oral hygiene, consistent poor money management to the extent that it effects me, meth habit, cheating/hitting/stealing/lying aka neurosis and/or profound addict behavior i might add to this later. —plurry |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 6:37 PM I agree with so many of those, it's easier to just list the ones that don't bother me - frizzy hair, and country music. You said "if I was actually searching." You have no idea how much it pains me to repeat your horrible grammar..again. Again - you said "If you don't feel like dating anyone, you're not going to no matter how great they are". There is a difference between searching for someone to marry (which I am not interested in doing any time soon) and dating (which I am interested in and I do feel like doing). Unfortunately, I don't think you're going to hold a "date Scott" contest. Why do you keep assuming that you have to go through the trouble of dating someone to rule them out? That's the whole point - if you rule them out, then you never date them. Therefore, it's highly unlikely you'll accomplish this task in a few weeks. I think you're coming at this whole thing with the wrong set of assumptions. In fact, it's more likely that in the natural course of your interaction with people at the college, you won't meet most of them. Why do you equate 'actively searching' with 'in the natural course of your interaction'. Part of searching includes taking measures to increase the number of people you'll meet. There are plenty of things you can do to do that (just hanging out at the MU is an obvious one for starters). You're assuming that everyone who smokes wouldn't give it up for the world. No - I never assumed that. I said (and you quoted) "you're asking someone to make an extremely difficult and significant life change (and hoping that they're not gonna resent you for it)". Just because someone is willing to do that doesn't make it a trivial thing for them to do (and, if you can just as easily avoid the problem in the first place, why not do just that?). My mom was a smoker for 12 years. She stopped when she became pregnant, and she hasn't cared since. Mine was a smoker for 41 years - and she quit recently. I assure you that has not been an easy thing for her. She's not an anomaly - lots of people find it rather difficult. Again, I'm not holding auditions. I don't have billions to choose from. My only choices are the people with whom I actually come into contact. This is going to sound trite, but if you join a club, volunteer, take dance lessons, or other classes, or even just hang out at coffee shops, you can significantly increase the number of people with whom you actually come into contact (not only that, but even if they aren't people you'd be interested in, most of them will also have friends, relatives, or just acquaintances with whom you can also come into contact). —anobody |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Edited Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 7:02 PM >>Why do you keep assuming that you have to go through the trouble of dating someone to rule them out? I've never made that assumption. Although at the least I don't think you should rule people out based on looks alone. However, the entire purpose of said "date Scott" contest was to compete for the privilege of dating you; hence, the "contest" consists of you ruling them out before you date them. And why do you care about that anyway? The length of time the contest takes is completely irrelevant, because my point was that it would go very quickly - but you're not doing that, and what you are doing is going to take quite a bit of time. >>Why do you equate 'actively searching' with 'in the natural course of your interaction'. Because you said you're not "actually searching." Hence, you're just meandering about in the normal course of your life. >>Just because someone is willing to do that doesn't make it a trivial thing for them to do (and, if you can just as easily avoid the problem in the first place, why not do just that?). Because all people are not created equal. If the person I'm happy spending the rest of my life with is a smoker, I'm not going to pass them up just because they have to quit. If they decide they like the cigarettes more than they like me, that's a different story, but I'd rather take the chance of finding that out than miss out on the possibility of a solid relationship. >>I never assumed that [most people wouldn't give it up for the world]. You said "at best, you're asking someone to make an extremely difficult and significant life change." "At best" implies no one will give it up easily. I posit that, at best, they don't really care. At middle, they're willing to do it because it's worth it and better for them anyway. At worst, it's your horrible life change. >>Mine was a smoker for 41 years - and she quit recently. I assure you that has not been an easy thing for her. The whole point of considering lots of people is not waiting 30 years. With any luck, I'll meet them before they've even been alive for 40. >>you can significantly increase the number of people with whom you actually come into contact Yeah..that's still not billions, eh? —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 7:33 PM Why do you assume that someone participating in a "date Scott" contest gets to date you? They're competing for the privilege of dating you. Hence, the "contest" consists of you ruling them out before you date them. Well in that case, that's about how reality goes. I have a 'date Scott' contest. Someone else has a 'date Sonia' contest. If Scott comes up in Sonia's contest and Sonia comes up in Scott's contest, then we date. Because you said you're not "actually searching." Hence, you're just meandering about in the normal course of your life. Argh! "Why do you equate 'actively searching' with 'in the natural course of your interaction'." Actively searching implies not 'in the natural course of your interaction'. I'm not actively searching for someone to mary, but if I were, then the number of people I'd encounter and date would increase significantly. Because all people are not created equal. Obviously - but it's an odds game. There are thousands of people in the world who are 'one in a million'. But you don't even need a 'one in a million', a person who is just 'one in fifty thousand' may well be good enough. If the person I'm happy spending the rest of my life with is a smoker, I'm not going to pass them up just because they have to quit. Obviously, that's your choice. Smoking is not a deal breaker for you. As you said - "not all people are created equal". It should be no surprise that you and I differ on something. If they decide they like the cigarettes more than they like me, that's a different story, but I'd rather take the chance of finding that out than miss out on the possibility of a solid relationship. Clearly this is a waste of time and I'm never going to convince you of this, but there really are more than enough people out there with whom you could have a solid relationship that you can afford to be a little picky. Yeah. Lots. Not all. Just off of the first page of Google searches - Quitting Smoking Is Especially Difficult For Women. According to that " Without help, only 5 percent to 10 percent of people will stop smoking for a year. With help, the rate goes up to 20 percent to 30 percent." Unless you have compelling evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to believe that "Lots" means "by far the vast majority". There are exceptions, but they are rare. You said "at best, you're asking someone to make an extremely difficult and significant life change." That is not "at best." At best, they don't really care. OK - you got me. "At best", all people in the world would get along, nobody would fight wars or go hungry. Let me change that to "Most likely". At middle, they're willing to do it because it's worth it and better for them anyway. At worst, it's a horrible life change. When you put numbers into your categories, things look a bit different. they don't really care (a very small percentage of people; in the low single digits at most)
they're willing to do it because it's worth it and better for them anyway (*maybe* ten to twenty percent)
it's a horrible life change (probably more than half of smokers) (numbers pulled directly from my ass, but I think they're in the ballpark for people who smoke with any regularity) Yeah..that's still not billions, eh? There are billions in the world. You can sample (realistically) thousands per year without even trying (especially if live in a reasonably sized city). And as far as dating someone who's trying to quit after smoking for 40 years Who said that? Am I really being that unclear here? That's not a rhetorical question - I really want to know. I never said anything about dating someone who has been trying to quit after smoking for 40 years. I said that my mom quit after 40 years (and she didn't try to quit for many of those) - in response to you saying that your mom quit without any difficult after smoking for 12. You seemed to think that your mom being able to quit so easily was representative, so I provided another anecdotal case as a counterexample. Since anecdotal evidence is meaningless, I've been looking around for actual stats. I found The Mayo Clinic bragging about success rates in the 23-45% range (after one year) with their programs. Wellbutrin brags that it doubles peoples chances of successfully quitting after one year. What they don't mention in their ads (but it's in the Wikipedia page I linked to) is that with a placebo, the success rate was only 10% and with Wellbutrin, it goes up to a dramatic and impressive [drum roll]... 23%. It seems pretty clear to me that it's not an easy thing for most people to stop - even if they're willing and motivated enough to try. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
oh-for |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 7:35 PM #1. posting more than 4 lines. Never, NEVER break the 4 line rule. (except for chix0r. she's smarter than the rest of us.) Doesn't anyone watch Family Guy? Didn't you hear Lois tell Chris, "if she smokes, she pokes." Duh. —oh-for |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Edited Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 8:01 PM #1. posting more than 4 lines. Never, NEVER break the 4 line rule. Meh. I didn't want to date you anyway. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
Colin |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 8:25 PM No one said fat or overweight. There's hope for me yet! —Colin |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 8:50 PM ugly, bad nose, bad teeth, kids, little dog(s), more than a little overweight, slothfulness, 40 or over, takes religion, astrology, tarot cards, reincarnation and/or their superstitions seriously, holistic medicine, tats that aren't discreet, multiple piercings, excessive amounts of jewelry (especially gold), refers to self as a hippie, nail biting, balding, frizzy hair, missing limb, missing breast(s), pre-op, post-op, slutty behavior aimed at anyone but me unless it's in jest, lack of cleanliness, poor taste in clothing, country music, personality based on hip hop culture, excessive make-up, excessive body hair, chronic bad breath and/or poor oral hygiene, consistent poor money management to the extent that it effects me, meth habit, cheating/hitting/stealing/lying aka neurosis and/or profound addict behavior - plurry Sorry Colin. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
jezebel |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 8:52 PM Why are the boys pickier than the girls? —jezebel |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 8:55 PM I don't know, but I'm not complaining. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
rAnCIDsICk@!!! |
+ |
Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Edited Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 12:15 AM I think it's because Women are crazy and they come in many more shapes size and mental stability then men. Were pretty basic and then women obsess over themselves and spin insane tornado's about what our expectations are of them.
Plus women seem to hate each other and majority of guys are pretty easy going.
So it's not that were pickier it's just that....
well you ladies mash yourselves up in such crazy ways that you force us to point
out stuff that's odd. —rAnCIDsICk@!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TortillaFactory |
+ |
Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 1:26 AM I like how you picked out the two words that work for you while missing a whole paragraph that contradicts you. I meant I agreed at the handball, drapes part. I didn't care/notice the rest. —TortillaFactory |
|
|
|
|
pookie |
+ |
Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 2:30 AM "drawn-on eyebrows. yuck." —anfernee I would add to that the psycho lipstick outside the lip line look. Muzzah! —pookie |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 5:50 AM
Edited Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 5:57 AM >>Quitting Smoking Is Especially Difficult For Women. Uh..I'm not dating a woman, so I don't really care that 60% of women fail to quit. >>It seems pretty clear to me that it's not an easy thing for most people to stop I never said it was easy to quit. All I'm saying is it may be something they're willing to do, and not something they'll regret for the rest of their lives. Also, I'm not sure you understand the scope under which I come into contact with people. Realistically I could see thousands of people in a year, yes. But actually meet them in order to rule them out? No way in hell. I'll probably meet 10 new people this year, if that. And even if I were "searching" for a date, I'd probably just go to a pottery class or something, which only adds about 20 people to the mix. In fact, even with dating my boyfriend and all the people that connects me to..I'm pretty sure I've met 0 new guys in the past year. Well, not counting work. But you have to figure that once I'm in an established spot, there aren't going to be thousands of new guys coming in to work there.
—chix0r |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 8:30 AM Uh..I'm not dating a woman, so I don't really care that 60% of women fail to quit. Uh... I do date women, so that does make a difference for me (especially if you're trying to convince me that I shouldn't consider smoking a deal breaker). But actually meet them in order to rule them out? No way in hell. I'll probably meet 10 new people this year, if that. I feel like I've said this a dozen times already, but you don't need to meet people in order to rule them out. You see a guy who is too schlubby, or too short, or whatever and you can rule them out without meeting them. There are lots of things you can do to ensure that people are actually reasonably good candidates before you ever meet them. And even if I were "searching" for a date, I'd probably just go to a pottery class or something, which only adds about 20 people to the mix. Taking your example - of those 20 people, you might find a new friend or acquaintance, who will also know at least a few people. That means that (indirectly) you're exposing yourself to at least (very conservatively) several hundred people through those 20. In fact, even with dating my boyfriend and all the people that connects me to..I'm pretty sure I've met 0 new guys in the past year. There's an obvious answer to that - move to another place (or otherwise expand your sphere). Well, not counting work. But you have to figure that once I'm in an established spot, there aren't going to be thousands of new guys coming in to work there. You've convinced me. You're gonna graduate, go into a teaching job, meet the new teachers, and then, for the rest of your young life, not meet anyone (though I still contend that's entirely by choice). —anobody |
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 9:07 AM my grandma used to draw on her eyebrows, but she doesn't anymore, so you guys can date her. —mandeemoo22 |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 9:48 AM Not to be crass, but... uh... Mandee.... is the reason your grandma doesn't anymore because she's no longer with us? —anobody |
|
|
|
|
Colin |
+ |
Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 11:09 AM Luckily I won't be asking plurry to fuck me anytime soon... ;) I did a ctrl+f for both words, maybe I was tired and missed it. —Colin |
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 2:33 PM no, anobody, she's still alive. a very healthy 85. i wouldn't set you all up with a dead woman! what kind of person do you think i am? —mandeemoo22 |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 2:53 PM no, anobody, she's still alive. a very healthy 85. Ah - good to know. i wouldn't set you all up with a dead woman! what kind of person do you think i am? Just being careful. In the same vein - she's not a red head with freckles, is she? Also, what kind of rack does she have? Don't worry if it's modest - that might not be a deal killer, so long as she's willing to get implants. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 3:13 PM she may have had red hair back in the day. now, it's a greyish/light brownish color. very stylish though. she gets it done every few weeks, but she's really not high maintenance. and she's got a nice rack. —mandeemoo22 |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 3:31 PM She doesn't have osteoporosis, does she? Don't want to break her hips and have to put her down. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 3:39 PM >>You see a guy who is too schlubby, or too short, or whatever and you can rule them out without meeting them. Like I said, I don't rule people out based on looks. >>you might find a new friend or acquaintance, who will also know at least a few people. That means that (indirectly) you're exposing yourself to at least (very conservatively) several hundred people through those 20. Um, no. My one new friend is not going to introduce me to several hundred people. In fact, if it's just an acquaintance they probably won't introduce me to anyone at all. >>or the rest of your young life, not meet anyone I'm not saying I'm not going to meet anyone. But I am going to meet a small enough amount of people that I can't go ruling them out just because they happen to smoke. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 3:49 PM Like I said, I don't rule people out based on looks. You mean you don't make any sort of assessment of someone without actually meeting and getting to know them? How confusing must life be for you? Um, no. My one new friend is not going to introduce me to several hundred people. In fact, if it's just an acquaintance they probably won't introduce me to anyone at all. OK - here is what I think the main source of our conflict is. I think that - if I know somebody, and they know somebody they think I might be interested in, they might introduce me. I'm not expecting everybody I know to - one by one - introduce me to every other person they know. I don't have to actually meet 99.999% of people. You seem to think that you actually have to spend a considerable amount of time with each individual in order to make a proper assessment. No wonder you see it as so hopeless. I'm not saying I'm not going to meet anyone. But I am going to meet a small enough amount of people that I can't go ruling them out just because they happen to smoke. The number of people you end up meeting is almost entirely up to you. You're young, and attractive. As far as I can tell, you're not a spaz. If you wanted to, you could probably go up to just about any guy on the street who you were interested in (or, since you can't judge, just any random guy on the street), strike up a conversation, and (if he's available and doesn't do anything that puts you off), go on a date that night. Or, if you want to just keep your head down and leave it to fate, you can meet a few people a year and e | |