WHAT IS YOUR ONE BIG TURNOFF WHEN LOOKING FOR A PARTNER?

[TeriM]

Someone who's morals are the total opposite to mine. I could not date a racist or a homophobic that sort of thing, it just would not work.

 

[Christopher Nicholson]

My only major turn off is rudeness. If someone is just openly rude to others it shuts me off. I can't really process what's going on because I don't want to be rude to her, but I can not allow someone to be rude.

 

[Grumpy Cat]

. He plans, he pays, he entertains, he holds the door and pulls out your chair for you, and he buys tokens of affection. And you do...?

You respect him, listen to him, support him and love him. That's the way it was done in the past and there were a lot less divorces and children were actually brought up in a real family. Then women's lib and feminism showed up where women wanted to be equal with men in all ways and things just went downhill from there. Believe me, I used to think this way when I was younger and would even hold doors open for my dates, but to be honest with you it felt "weird" and almost as if I was the "dominant" one in the relationship. I would go "dutch" and pay my half of the meal, etc. Now looking back (I'm still not married btw and I do believe this might have had a little to do with the way I used to think), I had a mentality that I don't need a man. I have a great job, I can pay for my own dinner and I can also even open my own doors. I'm sure when I went out on dates I would project this kind of mentality. If I was going to do all of the "dating rituals" myself (as I call them), then I might as well date myself - or at least go out with my girlfriends. There's nothing wrong with a guy planning the date, opening the door and what I call "treating me like a lady". And in return, I treat him like a gentleman.

 

[Grumpy Cat]

it gives the man all the power and makes the woman into a possession

A relationship shouldn't be about "power". It should be about respect and treating the other person as you would want to be treated. If one goes into a relationship thinking that it's all about who is more powerful then you are already at war with each other from the beginning. A relationship should be a team. You work with each other. When one is feeling down, the other one tries to pick them up again. And I don't see it as being a "possession", I see it as being a "partner".

 

[Grumpy Cat]

come into a meeting with the attitude that we are two independent people who come together to just be real and see what happens. The best "dates" I've had have often just been aimless walks and talks.

Just because I believe in traditional dating - I still do this too.

 

[Grumpy Cat]

I also don't care about how much a guy makes, what he does for a living or how he dresses, etc., beyond a point. I don't want to be with a bum, but I don't see a man as an opportunity to elevate my own socio-economic status.

I believe in dressing for the occasion. Restaurant clothes, going to the park clothes, or even jammies for a sleepover (where we stay up all night eating popcorn and watching scary movies - not hanky panky - otherwise, you wouldn't need jammies, right?)

 

[Slithytoves]

Myself, I see it as a double-edged sword: women buy into it because it makes them feel special and valued, but it's not genuine--in actuality, it's being put on a pedestal, and that allows a guy to a) control the pedestal and b) see you as a prize (and/or something to be 'protected') rather than an equal human being. In other situations, this will not make the woman feel special and valued. On the contrary, it gives the man all the power and makes the woman into a possession.

I know these women would probably not see themselves this way, would probably, as you say, reject traditional expectations that apply to themselves, but I think it's inherent to wanting to be put on a pedestal that you give up your control over your own status...which leads to accepting others' ideas of how to maintain that status, be it in appearance, in things 'nice girls' don't say and do, etc. It also means being idealized, and idealization is a way of treating a person as an idea or a thing, without rough edges or complexities or their own thoughts and desires. "A pedestal is as much a prison as any small, confined space" and all of that.

I hereby reciprocate your hundred "Agrees". I can't add anything to the above. Spot on, I think.

I loved the excerpt from Cracked, too. The article was a good read and I passed it on to several others. What I find amusing is that beauty as many men perceive it is so superficial that it really isn't much of a reward, when you really think about it. But I guess if a dude wants a medal just for getting through his day, superficiality is all he deserves.

Slithytoves (welcome back!) & I've got to throw this out regarding 'holding the door' ..... I personally like it when a man/young man opens & holds the door for a woman (ANY female) when for example they both approach a public or commercial entrance at the same time. Likewise, I open & hold the door in the same situation for an elderly/senior person or someone who has their 'hands full' with a child or whatever.

Call me old fashioned in that way but to me it is a civility & politeness that I like & think reflects a small acknowledgement of the other people around us.

Thanks for the welcome back. I agree with a lot of what you said, but I personally see a difference between common courtesy and gendered expectations. I'll gladly hold a door for anyone who needs it and appreciate it when others do the same for me. And if a man (strange or familiar) holds a door for me when I don't need assistance, I can and do accept it as an exercise of the good manners he was taught. I don't penalize men for trying to be chivalrous. I just wish we as a society would move away from gendered expectations in romance for the reasons I've stated previously.

 

[Slithytoves]

You respect him, listen to him, support him and love him.

But he's supposed to do all of that, too, so that doesn't even things out any.

That's the way it was done in the past and there were a lot less divorces and children were actually brought up in a real family. Then women's lib and feminism showed up where women wanted to be equal with men in all ways and things just went downhill from there.

The problems that led to the troubled state of marriage and family we see today have nothing to do with the things I mentioned that you quoted. I can't begin to address your comment about feminism without writing a tome, so I'll just say I respectfully disagree. I took a fascinating course on the subject because I felt certain I had misconceptions of what the feminist movement was and is actually about. It wasn't a Women's Studies course, either. I'm apparently allergic to those. It was a social psychology course taught by a man. A true eye-opener. If you're interested, I'll see if I can dig up the reading list.

Believe me, I used to think this way when I was younger and would even hold doors open for my dates, but to be honest with you it felt "weird" and almost as if I was the "dominant" one in the relationship. I would go "dutch" and pay my half of the meal, etc. Now looking back (I'm still not married btw and I do believe this might have had a little to do with the way I used to think), I had a mentality that I don't need a man. I have a great job, I can pay for my own dinner and I can also even open my own doors. I'm sure when I went out on dates I would project this kind of mentality. If I was going to do all of the "dating rituals" myself (as I call them), then I might as well date myself - or at least go out with my girlfriends. There's nothing wrong with a guy planning the date, opening the door and what I call "treating me like a lady". And in return, I treat him like a gentleman.

I don't think there's anything "wrong" with it, either. To each her own on whether or not there's anything "right" with it. I just don't think, from my own dating history, that it's an accurate gauge of a good catch. I've always been very egalitarian in dating and have had distinctly different experiences from yours. I tend to attract and be attracted to alpha males. Not the chauvinist type -- real alphas. They expect a woman to be independent. The best relationships I've had have been with this sort of man. My current partner is the very definition of an alpha, though he does make a few concessions to tradition likely in part for his generation. I would have married another one like this years ago but he died shortly before our wedding. My ex-husband (now a friend) and a couple of other former partners did all of the traditional things we've been discussing, and they were the most ineffectual when the going got tough in life or the relationship. Not to mention they just didn't "get" me at all. I guess we all have our own perspectives, needs and tolerances. I just see a lot of women who want everything both ways and I find it frustrating.

As for whether forgoing the traditional rituals is tantamount to dating yourself, that's your prerogative. The times when I've felt like I was dating myself were the ones when my White Knights who dated like old fashioned pros fell apart when I really needed them. Anybody can pay for a dinner or open a door. It's the big stuff that measures a man, in my opinion. It's signs of those that I now look for from the first "hello".

 

[royinpink]

Slithytoves (welcome back!) & I've got to throw this out regarding 'holding the door' ..... I personally like it when a man/young man opens & holds the door for a woman (ANY female) when for example they both approach a public or commercial entrance at the same time. Likewise, I open & hold the door in the same situation for an elderly/senior person or someone who has their 'hands full' with a child or whatever.

Call me old fashioned in that way but to me it is a civility & politeness that I like & think reflects a small acknowledgement of the other people around us.

I can definitely get behind holding the door for anyone, male or female, when you're in the position to do so. And of course door holding by itself is not so bad--I just don't like it when it's tied up with chivalry.

A relationship shouldn't be about "power". It should be about respect and treating the other person as you would want to be treated. If one goes into a relationship thinking that it's all about who is more powerful then you are already at war with each other from the beginning. A relationship should be a team. You work with each other. When one is feeling down, the other one tries to pick them up again. And I don't see it as being a "possession", I see it as being a "partner".

I agree, but traditional gender roles are unquestionably about power. You don't think it's about who is more powerful. That's not how power works. Did you read the article I quoted? That is how power works--he's talking about an unconscious societal expectation that you 'get the girl' if you are 'good' (and that girls are eye candy, and some other stuff, if you read the whole thing). Treating the genders unequally--one as the person who gets his choice, and another as a prize that is awarded--is the source of that power. I am suspicious therefore of all attempts to treat genders unequally.

 

[AsheSkyler]

I will never, ever understand how holding doors became sexist. EVERYBODY holds doors in my area that aren't automatic. Some will even stand there a few seconds if you're fairly close behind them. Especially if it's a person with their hands full, they're elderly, or in some way it is physically obvious that a little assistance would be appreciated.

These comments (and others you wrote) had me nodding at my screen. Women say they want social equality, but too many seem to require special treatment, and hold onto standards of conduct that put an inordinate amount of rules and requirements on men while rejecting traditional expectations that would apply to them as females. He plans, he pays, he entertains, he holds the door and pulls out your chair for you, and he buys tokens of affection. And you do...? I think it's bull****, honestly. There are more important things on which a woman should be judging a prospective mate.

Aye, true dat. And then finding a guy who doesn't mind letting you do that who isn't also an abusive jerk. I lucked out when I met my husband. We still have a fairly balanced relationship. There are a few traditional gender roles, like he handles most of the vehicle maintenance, and dirty diapers are primarily my territory, along with a barfing kid. I think it's kinda cute how big, bad manly men can be reduced to quivering mush over one little pile of puke or poop.
But he's still a pretty good dad, he's changed a LOT of diapers, more than most men in our area have.

"Traditional" dating is mostly just a lot of theater, in my opinion. I'd rather a guy just say "Let's hang out" and come into a meeting with the attitude that we are two independent people who come together to just be real and see what happens. The best "dates" I've had have often just been aimless walks and talks. If we hit a coffee shop, I can buy my own latte and not think a thing of it, thanks.

Heehee, and tradition also depends on where you're from. There is a very lovely kind of date night around my parts where you two just get in a truck at night and drive around listening to the radio and looking at the trees. And maybe go park in a field, star gaze, and you can imagine what the naughtier couples do.

I agree, but traditional gender roles are unquestionably about power.

Perhaps originally a lot of traditional gender roles were about power, and I know a few men and women who try to enforce because they are a little too controlling, but thankfully it can be about functionality now instead of power. Like right after Little Mischief came along. We both agreed formula was out of the question and not healthy enough for our standards, so I stayed home with the kid while he went to work until the kid was big enough to be weaned. And now I'm bringing home the bacon!

 

[Grumpy Cat]

It was a social psychology course taught by a man. A true eye-opener. If you're interested, I'll see if I can dig up the reading list.

Yes, I would be. Thank you.

 

[Grumpy Cat]

They expect a woman to be independent.

I think I'm being misunderstood here. You are speaking of being attracted to men that expect you to be independent. I'm as independent as they come. That's why I also want my "Hunny" to also be as independent as myself - which also means money-wise. I'm not attracted to a man who expects me to "bring home the bacon" and take care of him. Of course, I will take care of him because I love him and what is mine will be his and I will help in any way that I can, but it is not attractive to me to be the sole bread winner. The thing is when I say I want them to be independent and able to be on their own then I'm shot down as only interested in "money" and that is not it at all. Money has a lot to do with independence especially in todays hard economy. And people keep saying they don't want certain gender roles, but we do have gender roles. For myself, if I had any children, I would like to be able to stay at home with them and not have to be forced to go back to work because we couldn't survive without my paycheck. Just like my Ma did and I'm glad she was able to be a stay at home Ma. And I'm sure Beaver Cleaver was too.

And the traditional dating. Everyone is taking the romantic part out of dating. Example of how I would like to be treated by a man can be seen in the BBC English movies like "Downton Abbey." It doesn't just go during the dating time, but also during the marriage, as well. It is traditional and it is also meant to be "romantic".

 

[Slithytoves]

I agree, but traditional gender roles are unquestionably about power. You don't think it's about who is more powerful. That's not how power works. Did you read the article I quoted? That is how power works--he's talking about an unconscious societal expectation that you 'get the girl' if you are 'good' (and that girls are eye candy, and some other stuff, if you read the whole thing). Treating the genders unequally--one as the person who gets his choice, and another as a prize that is awarded--is the source of that power. I am suspicious therefore of all attempts to treat genders unequally.

This! I'd add that all human interactions entail a degree of power politics. I've learned to be very conscious of where the power is in all exchanges, and why. Staying attuned to that can be very useful for anticipating and shaping outcomes to everyone's benefit.

I will never, ever understand how holding doors became sexist.

Holding a door isn't sexist. Doing it as something other than an end unto itself, or expecting it of only one gender is, though, at least in my book.

There are a few traditional gender roles, like he handles most of the vehicle maintenance, and dirty diapers are primarily my territory, along with a barfing kid.

I think there will always be a place for at least some traditional gender roles in relationships. It would be silly to deny that each sex has strengths, weaknesses and natural preferences. I think a good relationship is one where things balance out and everyone does what they're better at. If it means utter role reversal, cool. If it means sticking to traditional norms, cool. As long as nobody starts insisting on which sex should do what.

Heehee, and tradition also depends on where you're from. There is a very lovely kind of date night around my parts where you two just get in a truck at night and drive around listening to the radio and looking at the trees. And maybe go park in a field, star gaze, and you can imagine what the naughtier couples do.

Until you added the bit about the naughtier couples at the end, I was thinking "looking at the trees" was a euphemism, though I suppose that would rightly be "trees and bushes".

I like cheap dates like walks and truck rides, though not just for the "cheap" part. When I was training as a counselor, I learned that it's better to sit across from a female when talking, but beside a male, facing the same direction. There are a number of explanations for this; the one I like best is that in our distant past, men hunted side-by-side, while women's work was more often done sitting opposite over a stationary task. I've found that a guy will be more open and communicative when a girl isn't staring at him, so walking or riding is a great solution when trying to get to know him. This also reminds me of the quote I've posted a couple of times by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry: "Love does not consist of gazing at each other, but in looking outward together in the same direction." That's figurative language, of course, but this scheme works well in reality, too.

 

[Warmheart]

Did someone say ....."bacon?"

 

[On the Inside]

I wish I had more of a list to share, but as I look back on my dating/relationship experiences, I pretty much ignored a lot of things that were turn offs for the sake of really wanting a few dates to turn into a relationship.

Things like:
Smoker
Control freak
Aimlessness
Unrealistic expectations
Non-athletic

What I need to think about is what I want out a partner.

 

[King_Oni]

What I need to think about is what I want out a partner.

That seems to be more relevant; also harder to find though, lol.

Knowing what you don't want, and therefore, crossing out potential partners you run into, pretty much anywhere, is relatively easy I suppose.

Knowing what exactly you're looking for is a bit harder... and also a lot more limiting, as it feels more like an absolute choice.

 

[Ste11aeres]

As a Moderator, I would like to express happiness at the fact that you guys are having a deep discussion on such a delicate topic, rather than an Internet war of nastiness.

 

[King_Oni]

As a Moderator, I would like to express happiness at the fact that you guys are having a deep discussion on such a delicate topic, rather than an Internet war of nastiness.

Don't hex it!

 

[Slithytoves]

Yes, I would be. Thank you.

Will do. Give me some time to find it.

I think I'm being misunderstood here. You are speaking of being attracted to men that expect you to be independent. I'm as independent as they come. That's why I also want my "Hunny" to also be as independent as myself - which also means money-wise.

I hear you on that, though that's not the kind of independence I'm referring to. I meant it in the sense that they don't expect to have to do certain things for me based on gender.

And people keep saying they don't want certain gender roles, but we do have gender roles. For myself, if I had any children, I would like to be able to stay at home with them and not have to be forced to go back to work because we couldn't survive without my paycheck. Just like my Ma did and I'm glad she was able to be a stay at home Ma. And I'm sure Beaver Cleaver was too.

My sister is a very smart, assertive, progressive-minded person who has chosen to stay home with the kids, and I respect that choice completely -- because it was in fact a reasoned choice and not just based on traditional social ideology. She simply preferred to remain in control of her kids' early learning, and later, to be there to keep things organized when they got home from school.

Gender roles exist, but they're a social construct that changes as society changes. It's not like we're born with them. It's fine by me if some people like traditional roles as long as it's practical and feasible.

I feel like we're conflating gender roles in established relationships with gendered courtship rituals as this thread progresses. I should point out that they're separate subjects, though this thread is your party.

And the traditional dating. Everyone is taking the romantic part out of dating. Example of how I would like to be treated by a man can be seen in the BBC English movies like "Downton Abbey." It doesn't just go during the dating time, but also during the marriage, as well. It is traditional and it is also meant to be "romantic".

I can understand your lamenting what you observe as the demise of romance. Some of us are more classically romantic than others. To each their own. Hailing back to threads about types of love, I'm a Pragma girl, myself. Because of that, you and I will never be able to reach a full agreement. I can respect where you're coming from, though.

The trouble with wanting Downton Abbey-style romance is that very few men maintain that stuff once a relationship is established. Another reason why it's a precarious thing on which to hinge an assessment. If you read the article royinpink posted, it's generally a device these days. Truth be told, it really wasn't that different in the post-Edwardian era, with the exception that that sort of chivalry was better-maintained in public over the long term, at least among the upper classes. If you read much social history or historical biography, you'll find that much of what you see of relationships in period BBC TV is romanticized considerably. Why? Because it's many women's fantasy. Sadly, promoting that illusion leaves a lot of them very disappointed in real life.

 

[Slithytoves]

As a Moderator, I would like to express happiness at the fact that you guys are having a deep discussion on such a delicate topic, rather than an Internet war of nastiness.

Thanks for the acknowledgement. That kind of feedback from a moderator matters in maintaining a good atmosphere. It's awesome when a mod interjects something that isn't in red boldface!