Deal breakers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Female here
-Religious
-No sense of humor
-No ambition
-Socially awkward
-Roommates
-Poor hygiene
-5’10 or under
-Someone who hates cuddling

Something tells me your sense of humor isn't all that developed either, or perhaps leans towards Gallagher.

What do you have against a guy with a roommate?

It's the 20-something's way of saying she wants guy with money.

Or it's a 30-something's way of saying she wants a guy who is solvent enough to live by himself. Nothing wrong with that.

x2. Also, having a roommate can significantly cut down on sexy times. Maybe she is loud in bed and wants to some privacy- nothing wrong with that!!

I don't know. The thread was about Deal Breakers, not simply preferences. Would a mature adult really eliminate an otherwise eligible partner simply because he had a roommate when they met? Seems pretty stupid, and frighteningly shallow to me. Almost like eliminating a man because "he didn't have a really cool car" or something.

I disagree. And, some women can afford to be picky. I know that if I were on the fence with someone, and I met them and they had a roomate, that might be a deal breaker. It's hard to imagine waking up and spending a lazy Sunday making breakfast in a communal kitchen. Especially if you're older than your mid 20s.

It just seems such a transient condition to actually eliminate someone. And can't you have the lazy Sunday mornings at your place then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Female here
-Religious
-No sense of humor
-No ambition
-Socially awkward
-Roommates
-Poor hygiene
-5’10 or under
-Someone who hates cuddling

Something tells me your sense of humor isn't all that developed either, or perhaps leans towards Gallagher.

What do you have against a guy with a roommate?

It's the 20-something's way of saying she wants guy with money.

Or it's a 30-something's way of saying she wants a guy who is solvent enough to live by himself. Nothing wrong with that.

x2. Also, having a roommate can significantly cut down on sexy times. Maybe she is loud in bed and wants to some privacy- nothing wrong with that!!

I don't know. The thread was about Deal Breakers, not simply preferences. Would a mature adult really eliminate an otherwise eligible partner simply because he had a roommate when they met? Seems pretty stupid, and frighteningly shallow to me. Almost like eliminating a man because "he didn't have a really cool car" or something.

I disagree. And, some women can afford to be picky. I know that if I were on the fence with someone, and I met them and they had a roomate, that might be a deal breaker. It's hard to imagine waking up and spending a lazy Sunday making breakfast in a communal kitchen. Especially if you're older than your mid 20s.

It just seems such a transient condition to actually eliminate someone. And can't you have the lazy Sunday mornings at your place then?

At my place every time? That seems kind of unfair. And who says it's transient? Maybe it's a temporary state in college, but if you're in your 30s and you've been having a roomate for 10+ years, that's not transient anymore.

[Anonymous]

Married for 11 years, but my list was pretty simple, based on mutual respect:

1. Must respect that I'm pro-life and would not have an abortion (husband is pro-choice, we agree to disagree, and yes, we've had a situation where our differences could've been a problem).

2. Must respect my 20+ years of vegetarianism- husband is meat-eater, but we cook vegetarian at home (his choice to eat veg at home).

3. Must respect my religion, and I'd do likewise for him. Probably wouldn't have married a non-Christian, but did marry inter-denominationally.

4. Must be open to adoption.

That's pretty much the core of it- there are things on which we see eye-to-eye, and thing we disagree, but it's been a happy marriage so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Female here
-Religious
-No sense of humor
-No ambition
-Socially awkward
-Roommates
-Poor hygiene
-5’10 or under
-Someone who hates cuddling

Something tells me your sense of humor isn't all that developed either, or perhaps leans towards Gallagher.

What do you have against a guy with a roommate?

It's the 20-something's way of saying she wants guy with money.

Or it's a 30-something's way of saying she wants a guy who is solvent enough to live by himself. Nothing wrong with that.

x2. Also, having a roommate can significantly cut down on sexy times. Maybe she is loud in bed and wants to some privacy- nothing wrong with that!!

I don't know. The thread was about Deal Breakers, not simply preferences. Would a mature adult really eliminate an otherwise eligible partner simply because he had a roommate when they met? Seems pretty stupid, and frighteningly shallow to me. Almost like eliminating a man because "he didn't have a really cool car" or something.

I disagree. And, some women can afford to be picky. I know that if I were on the fence with someone, and I met them and they had a roomate, that might be a deal breaker. It's hard to imagine waking up and spending a lazy Sunday making breakfast in a communal kitchen. Especially if you're older than your mid 20s.

It just seems such a transient condition to actually eliminate someone. And can't you have the lazy Sunday mornings at your place then?

At my place every time? That seems kind of unfair. And who says it's transient? Maybe it's a temporary state in college, but if you're in your 30s and you've been having a roomate for 10+ years, that's not transient anymore.

I guess the point is that "having a roommate" by itself is a silly deal breaker. The deal breaker is something else that "having a roommate" is merely the result of, ie, lack of money or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Married for 11 years, but my list was pretty simple, based on mutual respect:

1. Must respect that I'm pro-life and would not have an abortion (husband is pro-choice, we agree to disagree, and yes, we've had a situation where our differences could've been a problem).

2. Must respect my 20+ years of vegetarianism- husband is meat-eater, but we cook vegetarian at home (his choice to eat veg at home).

3. Must respect my religion, and I'd do likewise for him. Probably wouldn't have married a non-Christian, but did marry inter-denominationally.

4. Must be open to adoption.

That's pretty much the core of it- there are things on which we see eye-to-eye, and thing we disagree, but it's been a happy marriage so far.

Given your various beliefs, you seem like a nice person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Married for 11 years, but my list was pretty simple, based on mutual respect:

1. Must respect that I'm pro-life and would not have an abortion (husband is pro-choice, we agree to disagree, and yes, we've had a situation where our differences could've been a problem).

2. Must respect my 20+ years of vegetarianism- husband is meat-eater, but we cook vegetarian at home (his choice to eat veg at home).

3. Must respect my religion, and I'd do likewise for him. Probably wouldn't have married a non-Christian, but did marry inter-denominationally.

4. Must be open to adoption.

That's pretty much the core of it- there are things on which we see eye-to-eye, and thing we disagree, but it's been a happy marriage so far.

Given your various beliefs, you seem like a nice person.

What does that mean? Because a prolife Christian vegetarian would normally not be a nice person.

[Anonymous]

I think most of us have a longer list of dealbreakers for internet dating than for people we meet by other means. If a friend I trust vouches for someone and we have a nice time hanging out in a group a couple times, I would likely go out on a date even if they had some of my lesser dealbreakers for an online date. But if I saw the same person's profile and he or she mentioned being a minor porn actor in the 90s and having 12 cats, I would not give him or her a chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Married for 11 years, but my list was pretty simple, based on mutual respect:

1. Must respect that I'm pro-life and would not have an abortion (husband is pro-choice, we agree to disagree, and yes, we've had a situation where our differences could've been a problem).

2. Must respect my 20+ years of vegetarianism- husband is meat-eater, but we cook vegetarian at home (his choice to eat veg at home).

3. Must respect my religion, and I'd do likewise for him. Probably wouldn't have married a non-Christian, but did marry inter-denominationally.

4. Must be open to adoption.

That's pretty much the core of it- there are things on which we see eye-to-eye, and thing we disagree, but it's been a happy marriage so far.

Given your various beliefs, you seem like a nice person.

What does that mean? Because a prolife Christian vegetarian would normally not be a nice person.

I disagree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bad grammar
Doesn't use a coaster for a glass...or doesn't ask for one
Likes NASCAR
Unruly eyebrows
Wears socks with sandals
Has a head that's smaller than mine

LOL. Do you carry a tape measure on your dates?

The coaster thing? Jesus some of you people are weird.

The one about unruly eyebrows made me spill my coffee out. The funniest thing I've read in a long time!