not having positive preferences to look for but instead having multiple dealbreakers suggests that all women are functionally the same to you except for the ones who you think are lower quality… that is to say, you are not meaningfully valuing other people
Deal breakers are things that are limits. Limits are–in general–a good thing. It’s not that you’re saying that women–or people in general–are fungible, but you’re saying that people that fit any of these criteria won’t work.
IIRC, Dan Savage has said that there’s no settling down without settling. You can–should–have limits, but if it’s more than five things, you need to look at yourself very, very closely. You aren’t going to like every single thing about your partner, but you have to be able to accept them.
I could say, for instance, that I prefer people that are heavily tattooed, pierced, scarred, branded, and implanted. (…Which limits me to about .0001% of the US population.) But that’s not a deal breaker; I’m not going to reject someone because they don’t fit that particular preference, even though my body modification is important to me. On the other hand, I absolutely will not date anyone that doesn’t have a worldview that’s grounded in reality, e.g., is religious/“spiritual”, or believes in any conspiratorial nonsense, because I couldn’t have respect for a person like that. THAT’S a deal breaker. I won’t date someone that wants children; I’m unfit to be a parent, and I had myself sterilized a number of years ago. Again: that’s a deal breaker, because as with religious garbage, it’s a question of basic values.
But when people ask for your preferences they want to know your actual preferences (the positives), not the dealbreakers.
For example, if I asked someone out to lunch and asked what kind of food do they prefer (their preference) then I don’t want to hear a list off all the foods they dislike.
But the point of saying that certain things are dealbreakers is that, outside of those, anything is within the realm of possibility.
Do I prefer people with “extreme” body modifications? Sure. Is that a requirement? No.
With food, maybe I prefer Brazilian steakhouses, but the only thing I really dislike is pasta, sandwiches, and deep-fried everything. I’m not going to exclude Thai, Indian, Ethiopian, or Polish food, just because it’s not my favorite kind of restaurant. I’m literally going to be fine with anything that isn’t on my dislike list.
-I’m not interested in having kids, so I’d want a partner that feels the same.
-I like exercising, so I’d want to be with someone who does as well, particuarly if they’re into (insert physical hobby you enjoy)
-I like to go out and do (insert activities in meatspace that often involve meeting people), so I’d be interested in someone who likes to do that kind of thing over just sitting at home scrolling the internet.
These are good qualifiers that more or less equate to the same thing as OP states without coming across like a dick. From there, if someone was to introduce someone to OP, they can make a further determination of compatibility, and if someone doesn’t match due to the blunter version of the above it can be as easy as “I didn’t really feel a connection, [and unless she’s actually kind of a bitch] but she’s a great person and I hope she meets someone awesome”.
Edit: That said, if you’re the version of yourself that doesn’t match what you’re looking for, you should be working on that before seeking a partner IMO.
Instead of saying “good shape” which is a boring / potentially problematic answer, instead say “someone who is into (whatever sport or activity you enjoy)”. If you love to cycle or trail run then wanting someone who shares your interests is legitimate.
not having positive preferences to look for but instead having multiple dealbreakers suggests that all women are functionally the same to you except for the ones who you think are lower quality… that is to say, you are not meaningfully valuing other people
Deal breakers are things that are limits. Limits are–in general–a good thing. It’s not that you’re saying that women–or people in general–are fungible, but you’re saying that people that fit any of these criteria won’t work.
IIRC, Dan Savage has said that there’s no settling down without settling. You can–should–have limits, but if it’s more than five things, you need to look at yourself very, very closely. You aren’t going to like every single thing about your partner, but you have to be able to accept them.
I could say, for instance, that I prefer people that are heavily tattooed, pierced, scarred, branded, and implanted. (…Which limits me to about .0001% of the US population.) But that’s not a deal breaker; I’m not going to reject someone because they don’t fit that particular preference, even though my body modification is important to me. On the other hand, I absolutely will not date anyone that doesn’t have a worldview that’s grounded in reality, e.g., is religious/“spiritual”, or believes in any conspiratorial nonsense, because I couldn’t have respect for a person like that. THAT’S a deal breaker. I won’t date someone that wants children; I’m unfit to be a parent, and I had myself sterilized a number of years ago. Again: that’s a deal breaker, because as with religious garbage, it’s a question of basic values.
But when people ask for your preferences they want to know your actual preferences (the positives), not the dealbreakers.
For example, if I asked someone out to lunch and asked what kind of food do they prefer (their preference) then I don’t want to hear a list off all the foods they dislike.
Continuing with the food analogy.
The problem is that I’m basically up for trying almost anything.
I know what I foods I probably wouldn’t like (paprika for example).
And there are certain foods that I like more than others, but there is no hard preference.
Asian food? No problem.
Pizza? Love it.
McDonald’s bit plain but always reliable.
Kebab? Nice.
There simply is no preference, as long as I like the taste and it fills the stomach, I am happy.
But the point of saying that certain things are dealbreakers is that, outside of those, anything is within the realm of possibility.
Do I prefer people with “extreme” body modifications? Sure. Is that a requirement? No.
With food, maybe I prefer Brazilian steakhouses, but the only thing I really dislike is pasta, sandwiches, and deep-fried everything. I’m not going to exclude Thai, Indian, Ethiopian, or Polish food, just because it’s not my favorite kind of restaurant. I’m literally going to be fine with anything that isn’t on my dislike list.
My preference is women not yet blessed with children, in good shape, and not whoring themselves out on dating apps like tinder.
It’s actually really simple to use positive language!
Oh yeah, really positive that
It actually is -
-I’m not interested in having kids, so I’d want a partner that feels the same.
-I like exercising, so I’d want to be with someone who does as well, particuarly if they’re into (insert physical hobby you enjoy)
-I like to go out and do (insert activities in meatspace that often involve meeting people), so I’d be interested in someone who likes to do that kind of thing over just sitting at home scrolling the internet.
These are good qualifiers that more or less equate to the same thing as OP states without coming across like a dick. From there, if someone was to introduce someone to OP, they can make a further determination of compatibility, and if someone doesn’t match due to the blunter version of the above it can be as easy as “I didn’t really feel a connection, [and unless she’s actually kind of a bitch] but she’s a great person and I hope she meets someone awesome”.
Edit: That said, if you’re the version of yourself that doesn’t match what you’re looking for, you should be working on that before seeking a partner IMO.
ಠ_ಠ
Instead of saying “good shape” which is a boring / potentially problematic answer, instead say “someone who is into (whatever sport or activity you enjoy)”. If you love to cycle or trail run then wanting someone who shares your interests is legitimate.