Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The value in establishing deal breakers is just that: that there is no amount of substitute or redeeming qualities that would make the dealbreaker qualities acceptable. People in general present themselves with qualities that, frankly, are universally agreeable. "I respect people, I love Easter Bunnies, I love sunshine and honest people". Ok, awesome Miss America, nobody disagrees with that so who cares? I'm not gonna suck up your disastrous attitudes with money, entitlement complex, propensity for cheating, use of sex as material leverage, flakyness and emotional ambivalence just because "you're a good cook and love kids". Bartering of qualities is disingenuous.
Suggesting discriminators are "negative" is also flawed thinking. Dating is discriminatory, it is what it is. There's nothing "negative" about it. Honestly, the OP premise is kinda semantic in nature. "Can't have kids, can't suck with money, can't be flaky, can't be a cheat", those qualifiers DO address who people "ARE" as much as who they're not. So if I were to suggest that in order to seek success in a relationship I have to think of it in terms of the "does have" qualifier instead of the "does not have" qualifier I'd end up in the same place. Semantics. Seeking people who lack undesirable traits is equivalent to seeking people with desirable traits, because the condition of lacking undesirable traits IS INCLUSIVE of what I deem and consider a "desirable" trait and therefore "what I look for a person TO HAVE". Get it? There's no psychological differentiation.
What I infer from the OP is the suggestion that I should be kosher with qualities I find deal-braking just because said person possesses other qualities that are deemed agreeable and therefore should be used as redeeming credit. If that is the implication, then that's pure garbage. I don't barter qualities. You'll end up unhappy and it will be a self-appointed misery.
Suggesting discriminators are "negative" is also flawed thinking. Dating is discriminatory, it is what it is. There's nothing "negative" about it. Honestly, the OP premise is kinda semantic in nature. "Can't have kids, can't suck with money, can't be flaky, can't be a cheat", those qualifiers DO address who people "ARE" as much as who they're not. So if I were to suggest that in order to seek success in a relationship I have to think of it in terms of the "does have" qualifier instead of the "does not have" qualifier I'd end up in the same place. Semantics. Seeking people who lack undesirable traits is equivalent to seeking people with desirable traits, because the condition of lacking undesirable traits IS INCLUSIVE of what I deem and consider a "desirable" trait and therefore "what I look for a person TO HAVE". Get it? There's no psychological differentiation.
Actually what's flawed is your thinking. An "IS NOT" qualifier doesn't always describe a person the way an "IS" qualifier does. If I say I don't want an atheist, is that the same as saying I want someone who's a devout Christian? No. If I say I want someone who's not overweight, is that the same as saying I want someone who has an athletic build and is completely ripped? No. If I say I want someone who's not short, is that the same as saying I want someone who's tall? No. For all you know, I might prefer someone of medium height. Not every quality comes down to a yes or no. This isn't just mere semantics. The problem is you're oversimplifying people down to yes/no measures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hindsight2020
What I infer from the OP is the suggestion that I should be kosher with qualities I find deal-braking just because said person possesses other qualities that are deemed agreeable and therefore should be used as redeeming credit. If that is the implication, then that's pure garbage.
Where did you ever come up with this? Show me where I say a person should be flexible on their dealbreakers. Never did I suggest such a thing. In fact, if you reread my original post, you'll notice that I'm actually in agreement with their value. Or did you miss the part where I said "Process of elimination is certainly a good way to narrow down your options." Next time, ask for a clarification before you go making assumptions.
Actually what's flawed is your thinking. An "IS NOT" qualifier doesn't always describe a person the way an "IS" qualifier does. If I say I don't want an atheist, is that the same as saying I want someone who's a devout Christian?
No it isn't, but if you do not want an atheist there is nothing negative or wrong about saying so. It does not mean you are focusing on what a person isn't rather than what they are. It is just a convenient and clear way of phrasing what you do want. As the poster said, there is no psychological differentiation.
No it isn't, but if you do not want an atheist there is nothing negative or wrong about saying so. It does not mean you are focusing on what a person isn't rather than what they are. It is just a convenient and clear way of phrasing what you do want. As the poster said, there is no psychological differentiation.
Wrong. If I say I don't want an atheist, that's NOT the equivalent of saying I want someone who's a devout Christian. By focusing on whether they're NOT an atheist instead of whether they're a Christian, I am focusing on what they're not rather than what they are.
Imagine if I said I don't want to date someone who's black. That's obviously not the same as saying I want to date someone who's white since there are plenty of other races. So this isn't just semantics.
I prefer the positive approach myself. Unfortunately, we live in a lazy and devolving society so we really do have to spell out what we don't want, sometimes. And, sometimes, being generic or even positive doesn't help. When you exclude a certain group, someone is going to whine, and we do this even when we voice what we do want.
...But what does it say when you're more concerned with what someone isn't instead of what they are?...
Well sometimes, it could just be someone's way of immediately getting the undesirable B.S. out of the way so they can set themselves up for whatever infinite array of positive things may come their way. That's it. Being that wide open to whatever traits a person has aside from "no kids, no smokers" etc, is not only ok, but using your basic human right to be 99.99999% open-minded is hardly negative in my opinion - even if hypothetically I were to fail to meet someone's criteria. The world will keep turning, the sun will still rise and set, and life moves on.
Six of this, or half a dozen of that. Sometimes it really is just hair-splitting semantics.
"Why do people evaluate others in terms of what they aren't rather than what they are?"
Because it makes sense. If a man isn't fit, a non-smoker, has blue eyes and is intelligent, it doesn't matter to me "what they are." They can be a smoking, brown-eyed, fat convicted felon and I'll be their friend, but I'm not attracted to them and would never date them. To each his own, right?
If more people knew what they didn't want, they wouldn't pick the losers they oftentimes end up with. The ideal is probably to only marry once in your life, so make sure you pick someone who has the physical and emotional qualities you need and want. And eliminate those who aren't what you want.
When you ask people what they're looking for in a potential partner, you'll often hear a list of dealbreakers. Can't have kids, can't be a smoker, can't be overweight, etc. Now I can understand why you'd have such requirements. After all, if you don't like kids, then it's probably best you avoid dating someone who has them. But that's not really the answer to the original question, which is "what are you looking for?", not "what are you trying to avoid?" It seems like a lot of people are more concerned with what a person isn't rather than what they are. Process of elimination is certainly a good way to narrow down your options. Chances are, you do this anytime you look for a new job or shop for a new car. But what does it say when you're more concerned with what someone isn't instead of what they are?
I can see what you are saying but if a woman were to answer that question with "I want someone that's smart, funny, has a stable career and likes horseback riding" the guy might be all of those.... but he might have kids too, or be a smoker or a drinker or some other deal breaker. Better to know early if you (or she) have any deal breakers in there, no?
The job interview analogy is interesting but the applicant voluntarily applied knowing the location and some info about the type of work involved so going in they want the job. A dating situation is brand new out of the blue and there's no point wasting time if there's a deal breaker just as you'd not apply for a job that required flight travel if you were afraid of planes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
