(Note: This is cross-posted at BlogHer.)
When it comes to the men we choose to date, there are a number of reasons why women are accused of being “too picky.” This assertion is often valid, since initial attraction is largely influenced by physical features. A lot of men never get a second look simply because we don’t see anything there that immediately makes us think, “Hmmm…” But when it comes to personality, I don’t think there is anything wrong with having standards.
These personal standards can go the other way, too. For instance, I realize that some men might be turned off when they find out that as of this past December I eat a mostly-vegan diet. I think this is the right lifestyle choice for me and I’m not preachy about it, but I realize it might scare away certain meat-eating males.
Maybe they’ll think that dating someone with different food preferences would be too much trouble, or maybe they just don’t trust a person who wouldn’t enjoy a nice, juicy steak once in a while. But if I’ve hurt my chances of meeting a man who only wants to date a meat-eater, that’s not someone I would care to get to know anyway (just like with someone who would expect me to change my last name).
Some people make lists of things they want or require in a partner. Looks, jobs/money/goals, personality characteristics. I don’t have a physical list, but I imagine most (if not all) single women know what they do and don’t want in a potential partner. I’ve seen too many examples of what I don’t want — especially when it comes to relationships engaged in by people I care about — to know what I would and would not put up with.
That’s why I think it’s good to have standards; characteristics that I’ve told myself in advance that I would require someone to have. It’s not about being dismissive or “picky.” It’s about knowing what you want, liking yourself enough to know that you deserve to have that type of person, and not settling for anything less. Like Alexis said:
The reason that most of us are single is not that we are picky, it’s because we are highly selective.
There are certain things that are beyond a man’s control: going bald; having back hair. There are some things that I could deal with: tattoos; a piercing (as long as it wasn’t in a nipple or, ahem, down there). I have preferences: solid life and career goals; taller than me; beautiful eyes (the easiest way to make me weak in the knees); a sense of humor; gregarious enough to encourage me to come out of my shell — but not so much that he can’t stand to sit still. Then there are the absolute deal breakers: cheating, lying, racism, sexism, homophobia; a bad temper; addicted to drugs; deep in debt because he can’t control his spending; talks down to me or makes fun of me in a demeaning manner; raises a hand to me physically.
The only thing about the “absolute deal breaker” is that these things might not be readily apparent for a while, whereas the things in the other categories are easier to see. That part worries me: the possibility of not discovering certain undesirable characteristics until I’m so “head over heels” that I make excuses for that person’s behavior. I can tell myself that I would never do that, but who can ever say for sure until they’ve actually gone through it?
I did, however, have a deal-breaking date last summer, which I was able to bring to an end very quickly.
(Note: I couldn’t believe it! After I had this post completely written, I read Liz’s post on dating dealbreakers. We must be on the same wavelength right now.)
6 Comments
i think all of the things that are your dealbreakers will be hinted at nearly right away. if you go in with your eyes open, which i’m sure you do, there will almost certainly be signs from the start if he can’t control his spending or he’s racist.
i don’t think people are single because they are highly selective. i think people are single for one reason only, they haven’t met someone they want to date. period.
i’m highly selective (in my opinion) and i’ve rarely ever been single. before i met my partner travis i would only date men who were vegan (not willing to put up with me being vegan, but were vegan themselves) AND didn’t want to have children. and that’s on top of all the obvious deal breakers: honesty, treats me well, etc. i was only single for a few months before i met travis.
i’m not proud or embarrassed of that. i just point it out because i think being single is about being selective. like i said, i’ve rarely ever been single in my life so i won’t presume to know why other people are. i think i have some idea why i’m not. i won’t go into a whole long thing about me in your comments, but let’s just say it’s not because i’m not selective in who i have a relationship with.
d’oh, i should proof read. in the first sentence of my last paragraph i meant to say “i just point it out because i DON’T think being single is about being selective.”
WHAT’S THE DEAL?? YOU LEFT ‘POWERFUL TYPING FINGERS’ OFF YOUR LIST OF DESIRABLE, PREFERRED TRAITS YOU LOOK FOR IN A FELLOW!!! :)
Kidding, of course! Great, thought-provoking post, and wonderfully written!!
Good for you!! You SHOULD be picky. Or, ahem, selective. Seriously. Marriage is tough, even with a great guy. So hold out for Mr. Right! :-)
And thanks for letting me know about your Valentines post. Very fun!!!
Hm.
Of course we should be selective! I believe we should be nice to everyone, absolutely promiscuously… but when it comes to forming close relationships selectivity only makes sense.
À chacun, son goût, of course, but I think food preferences are easily adapted to. I was involved for three years with a woman who couldn’t eat (for health reasons) wheat (and related products with gluten), cheese, chocolate, and nuts. It just wasn’t a problem. I adjusted my cooking accordingly, and, hey, if I wanted a cheese sandwich that was no problem to her.
I suppose it’d be an issue if, say, I didn’t want to give up burgers and you thought that anyone who could participate in the killing of a cow was evil. But that goes beyond food preferences, doesn’t it?
There are things I believe, and I’d have trouble being involved with someone who didn’t share at least most of those basic beliefs. I couldn’t be involved with a devoted hunter, for instance. Nor with a Bush supporter. I don’t care about my partner’s religious beliefs, but I couldn’t be involved with someone who can’t accept that I’m a flaming atheist.
There are things I like to do, and I’d prefer to be involved with someone who wanted to do them with me. That only makes sense. On the other hand, it’d be great if a partner introduced me to new things too.
There are things I absolutely hate, like smoking (which has been discussed before, of course). I couldn’t be involved with a smoker.
I think that many people put up too many barriers, and many unnecessary ones, and I think that’s what we mean when we say that someone’s “too picky”. But we shouldn’t apologize for sensible, reasonable selectivity.
There’s an article on NY Times.com right now about dating and dealbreakers. Apparently, there is an index, but women will make allowances if the date can make up for their misgiving in some way. They actually quantified the data by analyzing responses to online ads. So, for instance, a guy who is 5’2″ will get just as many responses as a guy who is 6′ tall, but only if he makes $477,000 a year more. Wow. Just. Wow.
I think I have a few dealbreakers, but they’re fairly standard.
One Trackback
[...] Leah writes about her dating deal-breakers (I remember that topic). Here’s an example: I don’t tolerate married or even committed men hitting on me or [...]