Anonymous wrote:I love all these responses and how some preferences are complete opposites. Like how I couldn't handle a guy with no body hair and another poster preferred it.
As for all the snarky commits of "Wow thats why you are still single!!" Stop being lame. Everyone has their likes and dislikes and sometimes its the tiny annoyance that builds up over time.
I'm 5'6, brunette and have green eyes. I like cats and really cheesy disaster/end of the world movies. If my husband liked tall blonds or flat chested gingers or was a cinema connoisseur he would not have been attracted to me right? There is nothing wrong with having certain tastes and if you say physical attraction shouldn't/doesn't matter you are being naive.
I think I'm the PP you're referring to with the "no body hair." Just to clarify: It's not that I want a hairless man (though if some people do, that's OK for them, too), I was just surprised at (and if I'm being honest, put off by) visible dark ear hair on a 30-something guy who shaves and obviously cares about how he presents himself.
I agree with the rest of your post. I don't think anything much asked for here has been unreasonable, in any one list. Sure, if you added it all together, they might make an unreasonable ideal. But all these lists are not being added together: for some people, pets are obviously a dealbreaker. For others, no pets is a deal breaker. I say that those who know what their gut/visceral reactions are in terms of what they can't deal with (both sexual-attraction-wise and personality-wise) are better off dating than those who don't. Otherwise it's just throwing stuff against a wall hoping something sticks.