I've often wondered if I'm any more shallow than most other people. Sometimes I'll find myself looking at or talking to someone and thinking something like, "she's so pretty . . . except when she smiles" or, "I'd love to continue this conversation, but I don't like your voice." I've even caught myself thinking, "I don't want to find out what she's like in bed, because I don't think I could bear the disappointment if it's no good through no fault of my own" by which, I don't mean to imply that I am or that I think I'm the greatest lover ever, or that I'm able to elicit the best response with a given woman, but you know, sometimes there's that high level of mutual attraction and then for whatever reason it just doesn't click. I don't know where I stand on the whole soulmate thing. What I do know, is that sometimes you find someone and it's like you've already known each other for a long time and that the best times are in the mail. I also think that can be a little dangerous as it's easy to get that false sense of security that allows each person to get complacent and then wake up one day wondering why things aren't going as well as they used to. I guess my idea of a soulmate is more akin to finding a good collaborator, in that each recognizes that there's work to be done and is willing to trust the other one to be accountable for their part, even if there's no hard accounting.
You're Jerry Seinfeld. It's okay. I'm Jerry Seinfeld too. Reasons I have decided not to date people include: "I don't like his teeth;" "he lives too far away;" "we work at the same place;" "he works somewhere I'd have to see him every day/it would ruin [x place] for me;" "He hasn't dated enough people;" "not good enough in bed;" "seems too into me;" "has a kid;" "can't spell;" "unibrow;" "vegan;" and so on. It's okay to be picky. Just don't let your pickiness become "artificial structures devised not beacuse you have a reason for them, but because you are afraid of dating, and so use fake "standards" in order to ensure everyone who approaches you is immediately ineligible." Sometimes it really IS the little reasons. Sometimes you really just can't stand their hair or their spelling. Sometimes you're not willing to put in the effort that would be needed in order to fix the problem ("not good enough in bed") for instance. It's okay to be picky. Just recognize you're narrowing the field (a necessary thing) and ensure you don't narrow it too much, or for artificial reasons. I have always said that I want is not a significant other, but a Partner In Crime. Someone who will do all the crazy shenanigans I want to do with me - someone who will be down for all my hare-brained ideas.
A lot of those are bullshit. Actually, most of those are bullshit. Perhaps all of them. I've met two or three people in my life I'd consider dating. It's not that I'm picky to the point of avoiding. Just that I know what will work and what won't. I want both. :P.Reasons I have decided not to date people include: "I don't like his teeth;" "he lives too far away;" "we work at the same place;" "he works somewhere I'd have to see him every day/it would ruin [x place] for me;" "He hasn't dated enough people;" "not good enough in bed;" "seems too into me;" "has a kid;" "can't spell;" "unibrow;" "vegan;" and so on.
It's okay to be picky. Just don't let your pickiness become "artificial structures devised not beacuse you have a reason for them, but because you are afraid of dating, and so use fake "standards" in order to ensure everyone who approaches you is immediately ineligible.
I have always said that I want is not a significant other, but a Partner In Crime. Someone who will do all the crazy shenanigans I want to do with me - someone who will be down for all my hare-brained ideas.
Have you not watched Seinfeld? Because if you had, you'd understand that that was exactly the point I was trying to make. Seinfeld is notoriously picky and has broken up with girls because of, say, the sound of their voice or the way they laugh. Moreover, I posit that they're only bullshit inasmuch as I haven't met someone whose good traits would overpower these perceived negative traits(except for the kid thing - plus, you don't know how bad his teeth were! - possibly further evidence I am Seinfeld). As for the number of people you've met that you'd consider dating, well, that's cool and good for you? I wasn't leveraging my accusation, as you could term it, at anyone specifically on Hubski. I've seen it happen in real life and trust me, you can tell when reasons move from the "flippantly spurious" to the "downright ridiculous category." Stuff like "I'm not interested in even giving him my phone number because he has a buzz cut and from that alone I'm going to decide he's in the military and I have made a completely arbitrary decision not to date anyone who's ever been in the military, ever" or "I only want to date lawyers because I want to date people who have been to grad school" or "I'm not comfortable dating anyone who's not my skin tone" (which by the way is blatant racism; sure you're allowed to have preferences but if those are based solely on race, it's still racism). Well then good. Go find thyself both. You're allowed to want what you want and it's also allowed to be different than what I want.A lot of those are bullshit. Actually, most of those are bullshit. Perhaps all of them.
Nope. Not at all. I find that I have an ideal, and then compare/contrast to that ideal. The closer the match, the more likely I'd date them. But if just one trait is off, yea, that's being just picky :P. I realize. I was just responding to your comment. Because I guess from an outside perspective, it looks like I have a lot of ridiculous reasons/standards. Ridiculous to you perhaps. I disagree. You are basically relating racism to dating preferences. I'm not a homophobe because I won't date a male. I have no problems with different ethnicities or sexualities. But I wouldn't date specific ones. That's just personal preference, not racism/homophobia. That's what I'm working on.Have you not watched Seinfeld?
Seinfeld is notoriously picky and has broken up with girls because of, say, the sound of their voice or the way they laugh. Moreover, I posit that they're only bullshit inasmuch as I haven't met someone whose good traits would overpower these perceived negative traits(except for the kid thing - plus, you don't know how bad his teeth were! - possibly further evidence I am Seinfeld).
As for the number of people you've met that you'd consider dating, well, that's cool and good for you? I wasn't leveraging my accusation, as you could term it, at anyone specifically on Hubski.
I've seen it happen in real life and trust me, you can tell when reasons move from the "flippantly spurious" to the "downright ridiculous category."
(which by the way is blatant racism; sure you're allowed to have preferences but if those are based solely on race, it's still racism).
Well then good. Go find thyself both. You're allowed to want what you want and it's also allowed to be different than what I want.
Racism - the act of judging someone based solely on their race Saying you will not date someone because of their race - judging someone based solely on their race You're not a homophobe and evidence exists to demonstrate that sexual preference is not based solely on your feelings on the topic of whether you like dicks. At this point there are clearly biological and/or genetic factors related to whether someone is queer, gay, bi, etc. Meanwhile, there are absolutely no genetic or biological factors identified in whether or not you "like" people of different races because guess what. Race is just a skin color. It's nothing more than that; there's no other difference between a black man and a white man than the amount of melatonin in their skin. Sexual preference = something you can't help. Race = something you can't help. But making a blanket statement that there are entire races you won't date makes a huge judgement call about that entire group of people based on knowing ONE THING about them - the color of their skin. Assuming that you know any more about that entire group of people solely because of the color of their skin amounts to stereotyping , gross generalizations, and - you got it - racism. Frankly, I don't even understand the point of your original comment in its entirety or this comment here. You go from calling my preferences "picky" to them essentially implying that my findings of someone else's standards to be "ridiculous" is a personal definition and one you disagree with. It's not okay for me to find someone else's standards ridiculous but it's okay for you to find mine picky? ooooo kay dude. On a side note, your giant copy/pastings are kind of annoying. I understand you're replying to the text of my comment. You don't need to show me, say, entire paragraphs of what I've written in order for me - or anyone - to understand what you are responding to. It's the beauty of a forum - we all can already see, and if we aren't smart enough to figure out the context then I'd say the point of hubski has already been pretty much lost.ridiculous to you perhaps
I never said anything of the sort. I said I'm not attracted to people with certain skin colors. Just as I'm not attracted to people with certain looks. Just as I'm not attracted to people with dicks. It's all the same line of reasoning. It's not that I went out and said "ethnicity X is obviously worse because of their skin color". No, I said "ethnicity X is a-okay, but I wouldn't date one". Just like I wouldn't date a guy, or someone I don't find attractive. Doesn't mean I would hate them because of it. What is considered picky is an opinion. I never stated otherwise. It's not a bad or good thing to be picky/not picky. It's just an observation. I quote/copy the different sections of the comment so I can address each point individually. It makes it much easier to see exactly what I'm responding to, rather than just responding to the comment as a whole. I find that the point of hubski doesn't rely on whether or not people quote. There's a reason the markup was added in the first place (to support this kind of discussion). If hubski didn't need it (or doesn't want it) the function would be removed.Assuming that you know any more about that entire group of people solely because of the color of their skin amounts to stereotyping , gross generalizations, and - you got it - racism.
It's not okay for me to find someone else's standards ridiculous but it's okay for you to find mine picky?
On a side note, your giant copy/pastings are kind of annoying. I understand you're replying to the text of my comment. You don't need to show me, say, entire paragraphs of what I've written in order for me - or anyone - to understand what you are responding to.
we all can already see, and if we aren't smart enough to figure out the context then I'd say the point of hubski has already been pretty much lost.
So, you are making a blanket statement about an entire group of people based on their race. It doesn't matter if the statement is "I am not attracted to them" or "They are all skinflints." The statement remains racist. You are allowed to have preferences. If you have a preference about not dating an entire race of people, it is a racist preference, i.e., it is a preference based solely on race. You do not have to hate a race of people in order to act in a racist manner. You are interpreting racism to mean something akin to "Walt Kowalski sitting on the front porch of his house calling his neighbors spics and gooks." Racism, like many things, is a spectrum. I am not saying you hate an entire class of people because your preference is racially biased. I am not saying you use racial slurs or would deny someone a job because of their race. I have made, essentially, a proof in my prior post. Allow me to use variables this time to make it more clear. If you say you are not attracted to a certain race you are saying "I am not attracted to that skin color." Because that's the only difference there is. How is that not racist? I believe this is what that thing called "paragraphs" are for. But, Hubski as you wish; it's not my place to tell you what to do. You are entitled to do what you want and I am entitled to find it profoundly annoying. Edit: You don't have to hate women to be sexist. So why would you have to hate other races to be racist?
Racism, like let's say all things, is a spectrum and it is not black-and-white. You don't have to spit on your black neighbors or assume they all smoke pot and Cools or call them "porch monkeys" in order to be racist. A= being racist
B = making a judgment about a class of people based on their race
C = deciding that you won't date ANY people of a race, because of their race
A = B
B = C
Therefore, A = C.
QED, bitches. Until you can prove to me that deciding you won't date any people of a race because of their race is somehow NOT making a judgment call about a class of people based on their race, you have not proven that doing so is not racist. (Because I highly doubt you can disprove the first assertion.)
It makes it much easier to see exactly what I'm responding to, rather
It's about appearance. Just like how I don't find people with outward noses attractive. I don't find certain skin tones attractive. Just like I don't find bald women attractive. It's not about race/ethnicity, it's about appearance. As I said. It's purely an appearance thing. I have plenty of close friends that are of every ethnicity. Ethnicity does not influence what I think of them as a person. And what I think of the person's behavior or intelligence isn't the only thing that goes into whether or not I'd date someone. You seem to imply it is. Yes, that is what I'm saying. I'm not attracted to certain skin tones. Because I don't look down on people I don't find attractive. I don't prevent them from talking to me or working with me. Just because I won't date another man doesn't mean I'm a homophobe or sexist. Just like I won't date certain ethnicities. I have no problems with them (just like I have no problems with the LGBT community). It's just my personal preferences when it comes to relationships. Perhaps it's a difference in understanding the terms sexist and racist. Could you please define them then? I was under the impression the terms meant discriminating against a certain gender/ethnicity. As I've mentioned several times, I have no problems with men, or different ethnicities. I just wouldn't date them. That doesn't mean I'm sexist/racist. If refusing to date certain ethnicities makes me racist, refusing to date the same gender makes people homophobic and sexist. It doesn't. In either case. No judgement calls are being made. Particularly when it comes to relationships.So, you are making a blanket statement about an entire group of people based on their race. It doesn't matter if the statement is "I am not attracted to them" or "They are all skinflints." The statement remains racist.
You are allowed to have preferences. If you have a preference about not dating an entire race of people, it is a racist preference, i.e., it is a preference based solely on race.
Until you can prove to me that deciding you won't date any people of a race because of their race is somehow NOT making a judgment call about a class of people based on their race, you have not proven that doing so is not racist.
If you say you are not attracted to a certain race you are saying "I am not attracted to that skin color." Because that's the only difference there is.
How is that not racist?
Edit: You don't have to hate women to be sexist. So why would you have to hate other races to be racist?
Seriously are you asking me to define a term I have already defined twice in this conversation? Congrats, you win. A big A+ for refusing to even fully read the conversation! My table is flipped, game is over, I'm out. But your dating preferences? Still racist.
Actually, I hate to spoil this for you, but I'm | A BIG FUCKING FLAMING QUEER BISEXUAL, | I've got the exes to prove it, so a) You can take that back, and B) as I have previously stated and you have probably already quoted me on, there's a difference between preferences you choose, e.g., skin tone, and preferences you are biologically disposed towards, i.e., gender. Thanks. Please feel free to QQ now. Also, I'd encourage you to try to not make assumptions about gender and sexuality over the interet like you just did ever again.
My bad: Most people's dating preferences? Still sexist. Better? I can't choose what I'm attracted to. And you of all people should be able to understand that. Being attracted to a certain skin tone is no different than being attracted to a certain gender. And that's no different than having some sexual fetish. It all falls in line in the same way. You can't choose what you are attracted to. That's why I'm so chill with the LGBT community. They can't choose who they are attracted to and neither can I. No need to judge because of that. Please explain how I can "choose" who I'm attracted to. Isn't that the whole argument the LGBT community is trying to make? That you can't? It's not like I can magically just be turned on by anything.
You are not biologically or genetically predisposed to dislike (or not be attracted to) certain races. Moreover, even if you were, that wouldn't make it not racist. It would just make it inherent racism. Meanwhile, in the LGBT community, as I have stated, there is evidence that gender preferences have biological or genetic roots. You are arguing this point because you do not want to view yourself as discriminating. Isn't it better to acknowledge the difference in racial treatment, and, if you're okay with not dating those races, move on? Some people, like me, are going to find it racist, and by my definition, which I've already stated multiple times, it undeniably is. It doesn't seem to bother you to make that judgment call on attractiveness based on the race of other people - it just bothers you to get called "racist" for it. Look. Some people are going to call you racist for it.
Can you back that statement please? I have not once made an active decision/choice towards what I'm attracted to. So I guess there's inherent sexism as well? What's your explanation for sexual fetishes then? People choose to only be turned on by certain obscure things? That's a choice? What about pedophiles? They chose to be attracted to children? That's a pretty bigoted and hypocritical worldview. I can't choose which ethnicity or personality, or eye color or any other weird thing I might find attractive. Just like how I find inward noses attractive and am repulsed by outward ones. I guess I'm nose-ist as well, right? God damn. How ignorant can you be? Just as people can't choose to be straight or gay, people can't choose what they are attracted to. It's all the same goddamn thing. Edit: It's about as racist as being attracted only females being sexist is. And at that point, I'm okay. I'm not sexist because I only like females. And I'm not racist for only liking one ethnicity. Unless you are claiming 90% of the world is sexist.that wouldn't make it not racist. It would just make it inherent racism.
Aw, man, you caught me! That's my problem. I'm ignorant. My bad. Lemme go get some education. Whether or not you can choose it, you are making a judgment about an entire class of people based on their skin tone. A Jewish person might decide for religious reasons that he only wants to date other Jewish people. He may have a very good reason for this, for instance he wants to raise his children in the Jewish tradition or he wants to have a Jewish wedding or whatever. It's still discriminatory. In ways, dating is about discrimination. Yes, you're nose-ist, and I'm age-ist. Can you back that up? Moreover, just because you don't think you've made a conscious decision, doesn't mean that a decision hasn't been made - a choice that you weren't born with, already formed in your consciousness. I don't pretend to be an expert on sexual fetishes or what causes them but I suspect it is a multifold scenario with many variables and that many people have different "causes" or what-have-you behind their fetishes. I would posit that is far too broad a subject and one in which I have too little knowledge for me to comment on.people can't choose what they are attracted to
Except I'm not. I'm not making any judgements. It's "what I'm attracted to" vs "what I'm not attracted to". I don't act differently towards those people because of it. I don't think of them any differently. I just don't think of them as datable. And most people I don't consider datable. Which shouldn't really be the concern of anyone, since I'm only going to be in a relationship with one person (ideally) anyway. Except you are totally butchering what it means. And you are applying both definitions onto the person. Which is wrong. I'm not racist. I just don't want to date them. I'm not nose-ist. I just don't want to date them. You aren't age-ist, you just don't want to date them. "ist" would imply you treat them differently and as less-than. If it's a choice, I should be able to choose otherwise. And I can't. If it's not a conscious choice, it's not a choice. I'm willing to bet it's approximately the same thing that "causes" gender preferences and any other sexual related thing. Considering it's all effecting the same thing anyway. As I said, gender is thrown into the mix with everything else. It's not "special". It's just yet another preference on top of the hundreds possibly thousands I already have. There's nothing special about it. So stop acting like there is. Edit: Skin Tone / ethnicity isn't special either. And I'm surprised you latched onto this instead of continuing the discussion from earlier. I think you just wanted to call someone racist :Pyou are making a judgment about an entire class of people based on their skin tone.
In ways, dating is about discrimination. Yes, you're nose-ist, and I'm age-ist.
Can you back that up? Moreover, just because you don't think you've made a conscious decision, doesn't mean that a decision hasn't been made - a choice that you weren't born with, already formed in your consciousness.
I don't pretend to be an expert on sexual fetishes or what causes them but I suspect it is a multifold scenario with many variables and that many people have different "causes" or what-have-you behind their fetishes. I would posit that is far too broad a subject and one in which I have too little knowledge for me to comment on.
I'm not sure how it looks from the outside, but I can say that I've dated quite a few girls who didn't fall into the "ideal female" category in the magazine of my own fantasies. Come to think about it, I've even dated girls that have shattered fantasies for me. I used to think that dating a girl who couldn't keep her hands off me would be great . . . and it was, for a surprisingly short time. After that, it got to be kind of a pain. Partner In Crime is a good way of putting it. I have plenty of guy friends who fit that description, but for friends I'm not always certain it's a good thing. For example, I have a good friend like that and sometimes we'd just feed off each other until we'd created a perfect storm of What Not To Do. Live and learn.It's okay to be picky. Just don't let your pickiness become "artificial structures devised not beacuse you have a reason for them, but because you are afraid of dating, and so use fake "standards" in order to ensure everyone who approaches you is immediately ineligible."
Partner in Crime - I'm so gonna steal that one to describe relationships. The best friends I have, have that magic combination of serious, thought-provoking discussions and sarcastic, silly humour. I'm lucky to have multiple people like that in my friend groups, but not many of them are female. Partner in crime sounds like the best kind of relationship, really: working together to achieve goals, but knowing each other well enough to help the other out.Partner In Crime is a good way of putting it. I have plenty of guy friends who fit that description, but for friends I'm not always certain it's a good thing. For example, I have a good friend like that and sometimes we'd just feed off each other until we'd created a perfect storm of What Not To Do. Live and learn.
Ha, thanks. It is a good encapsulation of what I want. You sum up the essense well. I want someone who is in on my crazy plans, but as you add in - "knowing each other well enough to help the other out" - someone I can depend upon if things go wrong (as we cavort about breaking the law a la Bonnie and Clyde). Someone who is worthy of my trust in these potentially-madcap adventures. In a perfect world my perfect partner in crime would be someone who would help me win the prisoner's dilemma. But that requires me to trust them as much as they trust me, and that's where I think I would run into problems first. Edit: But really. What's two years in prison? (Being facetious!)