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

[AsheSkyler]

There are people who think that working on a relationship signifies a bad relationship and [conversely] good relationships "just happen" and require no work- I am not at all interested because it can be disastrous in my personal experience.

Most other things can be dealt with if you feel you are basically compatible and agree a good relationship can take some work, though.

Aye. If somebody doesn't have the patience to tend the garden to enjoy the flowers, they just need to buy a fake plant.

What I enjoyed working on in my relationship was shared hobbies. Discovering new things together was pretty fun.

 

[royinpink]

The first thing I notice, without even consciously recognizing it (except as discomfort), is assertiveness--I don't like people who are too pushy, and I know I won't be able to be myself around them. Then, they can't be too shallow, as I'll need to have earnest conversations with them about ethical or scientific issues. Finally, they can't be heartless...a sense of fairness and respect for one's fellow creatures is a prerequisite.

Also, I guess...I don't really seem to click with anyone who is concerned with maintaining their status/sense of belonging/whatever as part of a social group. It doesn't matter how nerdy or broad the group is, as long as they value that sense of social belonging, I don't really relate or get the same sense of individual loyalty, independence, or idealism from them. Funny, I guess, 'cause you could say I try very hard to 'pass' socially, but then again, that's all the acknowledgment I can really handle. I would not want to have to be a part of it all the time. Just want somebody to tell me I'm okay.

 

[Grumpy Cat]

In the past I've noticed a bit of an overlap with any partner I was with who had a job and other obligations that required planning around. I'm not particularly interested in the planning part. I guess I'd prefer to be able to hang out whenever the both of us want, not whenever either one has time in a hectic lifestyle.

I'm noticing the same with a friend; he usually is bummed out when it's 5 in the morning and he has to go home because... "I need to go to work tomorrow".

And with that I've found that I'm mostly fun to be with (be it romantically or just as friends) without moderation. I don't translate well in "hang out for a few hours" and the idea that I should fit into someones planning.

It's also why I'm so confused when I browse OkCupid and similar sites and run into profiles that say "I have a busy life"... yeah, great, how exactly do I fit in there? Are you cutting out 4 hours of sleep a day? Are you going to work less hours? And really, if the answer is yes to this or any questions, to me it sounds like you actually need someone to tell you "here, this is what you should do with your time". And the moment people need that... I'm out, lol.

Dude, l gotta make sure I got this straight. You want someone with no job, no pets and available at any hour. I remember from another thread that sometimes your "hobbies" can keep you off by yourself for days to months at a time, isn't that right? And how are you planning on doing anything if no one has a job? Most entertainment costs money. Please King Oni, help me understand.

 

[King_Oni]

Dude, l gotta make sure I got this straight. You want someone with no job, no pets and available at any hour. I remember from another thread that sometimes your "hobbies" can keep you off by yourself for days to months at a time, isn't that right? And how are you planning on doing anything if no one has a job? Most entertainment costs money. Please King Oni, help me understand.

You assume that when dating everyone has to desire to go places and whatever. I don't particularly have a lot of interest to visit the movie theatre and such. All the money spent on entertainment when dating... I could probably spend on myself as well. This probably makes me sound egotistitical... oh well; that's why I'm not actively dating and more in it for "I'll see whatever comes around".

I'm fully aware that I'm clearly not traditional in this dating thing. But then again, I don't know if I'm interested in dating anymore anyway. Especially not when it involves spending a load of money, just so someone can have fun.

I also believe that the way you deal with dating and what you offer there reflects you as a person. Obviously if I'm a cheapskate who thinks little of dating and spending heaps of money just to have fun and hang out with a potential mate... one filters out a lot of people. Anyone interested in how much money you have, what kind of job you have and more of that, aren't neccesarily the crowd I connect with. I mean, to each their own I suppose... just not for me.

Looking back at all my relationships; none involved going out for dinner or anything of that nature. Some just were through meeting at a club, some were through meeting online. That lead to hanging out a bit together, hanging out a bit more and eventually relationships happen. Never with the intention of a relationship... which is why dating to me sounds like I'm dead set on "getting a relationship" rather than no prior plan and just seeing where it goes. That's probably why I'm not big on dating either. The best plan for me, for a relationship is "let's find new friends either on- or offline and see how that develops".

However, I feel the focus is drifting too much towards this idea that I want someone without a job and how ridiculous it must sound to you. As I've pointed out, that I'm increasingly having this stance that I'm not particularly charmed with someone who lives in this rigid structure of daytime activity... and that includes a job and other obligations. That should be the core of the issue, not neccesarily "no job". I mean, a friend of mine has no steady job (nor any kind of government benefits), but has plenty of cash for the way he lives. He lives a pretty unstructured life as well. That's when you are a freelancing gamedeveloper. There are probably more examples along the lines of acquiring money that require less of a set structure and work out fine. It is however just a smaller crowd.

 

[Judge]

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that not everyone holds a uniform sense of values, both in considering a partner and/or a lifestyle.

The thing is, such concerns may become a moot point if one simply meets another with the same values whatever they may be.

 

[Grumpy Cat]

You assume that when dating everyone has to desire to go places and whatever. I don't particularly have a lot of interest to visit the movie theatre and such. All the money spent on entertainment when dating... I could probably spend on myself as well. This probably makes me sound egotistitical... oh well; that's why I'm not actively dating and more in it for "I'll see whatever comes around".

I'm fully aware that I'm clearly not traditional in this dating thing. But then again, I don't know if I'm interested in dating anymore anyway. Especially not when it involves spending a load of money, just so someone can have fun.

I also believe that the way you deal with dating and what you offer there reflects you as a person. Obviously if I'm a cheapskate who thinks little of dating and spending heaps of money just to have fun and hang out with a potential mate... one filters out a lot of people. Anyone interested in how much money you have, what kind of job you have and more of that, aren't neccesarily the crowd I connect with. I mean, to each their own I suppose... just not for me.

Looking back at all my relationships; none involved going out for dinner or anything of that nature. Some just were through meeting at a club, some were through meeting online. That lead to hanging out a bit together, hanging out a bit more and eventually relationships happen. Never with the intention of a relationship... which is why dating to me sounds like I'm dead set on "getting a relationship" rather than no prior plan and just seeing where it goes. That's probably why I'm not big on dating either. The best plan for me, for a relationship is "let's find new friends either on- or offline and see how that develops".

However, I feel the focus is drifting too much towards this idea that I want someone without a job and how ridiculous it must sound to you. As I've pointed out, that I'm increasingly having this stance that I'm not particularly charmed with someone who lives in this rigid structure of daytime activity... and that includes a job and other obligations. That should be the core of the issue, not neccesarily "no job". I mean, a friend of mine has no steady job (nor any kind of government benefits), but has plenty of cash for the way he lives. He lives a pretty unstructured life as well. That's when you are a freelancing gamedeveloper. There are probably more examples along the lines of acquiring money that require less of a set structure and work out fine. It is however just a smaller crowd.

Me again. I'm still thinking about some of the things you have said. So in a partner, you would like them to be "free to see" at most time and not constricted. Are you still wanting to spend your time on your hobbies and such (maybe for months) and not have them wanting you to be available for when they would like to do something?

 

[King_Oni]

Me again. I'm still thinking about some of the things you have said. So in a partner, you would like them to be "free to see" at most time and not constricted. Are you still wanting to spend your time on your hobbies and such (maybe for months) and not have them wanting you to be available for when they would like to do something?

Suppose having mutual interests is a thing that comes to mind. A fun night for me would be collaborate on music with my partner for example. That way I'd cover the notion of being with my partner and being involved with something I like doing (which... probably sounds more like I would prefer to do anything hobby-related than be with someone... )

I can totally understand how this sounds weird and how I might be the worst type of datingmaterial around there. But in all seriousness; my train of thought in most cases needs to depart, so to speak, before I can get into other things. Perhaps that puts my self-interest a bit more in perspective.

 

[Ste11aeres]

Me again. I'm still thinking about some of the things you have said. So in a partner, you would like them to be "free to see" at most time and not constricted. Are you still wanting to spend your time on your hobbies and such (maybe for months) and not have them wanting you to be available for when they would like to do something?

I don't think he means that he wants someone at his beck and call. I think it's more that he wants someone with a "free" lifestyle, someone who perhaps has that lifestyle for their own sake, because they themself like it, not because they hope King Oni will like it.

I think, really, he's saying he wants someone like himself. And, imo, someone more "traditional" in terms of employment might not like him that much-or, to be more clear, might not match well enough with his values to enjoy being in a relationship with him. I visualise such a relationship would turn into them constantly nagging him to "grow up," etc.

Am I interpreting you correctly, King Oni?

 

[King_Oni]

Am I interpreting you correctly, King Oni?

Aye!

Thanks, heh...

 

[Slithytoves]

There's no good way to put this. I don't like weakness and can sense it a mile off. I can only deal with a partner who has a pretty hefty pair of cojones, figuratively speaking. My personality is way too strong for anything less.

 

[Warmheart]

Ha! (sorry, Slithy... really literal/visual thinker here! )

 

[SignOfLazarus]

There's no good way to put this. I don't like weakness and can sense it a mile off. I can only deal with a partner who has a pretty hefty pair of cojones, figuratively speaking. My personality is way too strong for anything less.

I love this. I actually think it's a great way to put it, since it pretty much demonstrates the point you are trying to make. You clearly do have a strong personality. :]

ETA: I should add, I clicked agree because I realized a while ago that anyone compatible would actually be compatible because they complement me. They would be able to understand my passion and drive- so I guess "strong personality". But I kind of see it as, I'm fire and I needed someone who was water to cool me off a bit and they need some one who is fire to light/heat them up a bit. ...it's worked out well. While he is calm in presence, he is no *small* presence.

 

[Slithytoves]

I love this. I actually think it's a great way to put it, since it pretty much demonstrates the point you are trying to make. You clearly do have a strong personality. :]

ETA: I should add, I clicked agree because I realized a while ago that anyone compatible would actually be compatible because they complement me. They would be able to understand my passion and drive- so I guess "strong personality". But I kind of see it as, I'm fire and I needed someone who was water to cool me off a bit and they need some one who is fire to light/heat them up a bit. ...it's worked out well. While he is calm in presence, he is no *small* presence.

I find that most people use "strong personality" as a polite way to describe someone who is an overbearing jerk. I don't think you meant it that way in this case (Jeez, I sure hope not!), but I think it's a shame that it's become a euphemism because it's a very handy and apt description for a lot of pretty cool folks. A person can't help how they're made. I was made to be confident and determined in a lot of areas; some have said I can be intimidating when it comes to romance. In other areas I'm almost tragically insecure and vulnerable, but that side of me isn't in the driver's seat most of the time. Not anymore, anyway. It's been a very long process.

You nailed it about "presence". I don't presume to say I necessarily have one, but I need one in my partners. People who take up only a very small amount of psychic space tend to get steamrolled by me quickly. I never mean it maliciously but it does happen and it's a very unhealthy situation for both of us. Some people with assertive personalities like to have a partner they can dominate. I prefer someone who can challenge and inspire me, even neutralize me when I need it. Smarter and stronger is what turns me on. It doesn't feel good to run roughshod over another human being.

 

[Slithytoves]

You assume that when dating everyone has to desire to go places and whatever.

I'm fully aware that I'm clearly not traditional in this dating thing.

I also believe that the way you deal with dating and what you offer there reflects you as a person.

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.

"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.

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. Again, I find that an outdated mindset. Same with structured availability. I don't need someone to be available at my own convenience, as long as we get to spend enough time together that I don't feel like nothing more than an occasional afterthought.

I've ended relationships with very wealthy, successful, structured, smartly-styled and impeccably chivalrous men who were sorely lacking in the areas that really matter when it comes to finding genuine happiness with another person. Those qualities mean nothing to me anymore.

 

[SignOfLazarus]

I prefer someone who can challenge and inspire me, even neutralize me when I need it. Smarter and stronger is what turns me on. It doesn't feel good to run roughshod over another human being.

*nodnodnod*
yes to all of that.

…and no I don't mean strong personality="jerk" :]

 

[royinpink]

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.

"Traditional" dating is mostly just a lot of theater, in my opinion.

Oh wow, I wish I could agree a hundred times with this. You had the guts to say what I merely thought.

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.

On this point, Cracked has some insight in concrete, relatable terms (from a guy's perspective, to boot):

And now you see the problem. From birth we're taught that we're owed a beautiful girl. We all think of ourselves as the hero of our own story, and we all (whether we admit it or not) think we're heroes for just getting through our day.

So it's very frustrating, and I mean frustrating to the point of violence, when we don't get what we're owed. A contract has been broken. These women, by exercising their own choices, are denying it to us. It's why every Nice Guy is shocked to find that buying gifts for a girl and doing her favors won't win him sex. It's why we go to "slut" and "whore" as our default insults -- we're not mad that women enjoy sex. We're mad that women are distributing to other people the sex that they owed us.

Yes, the women in these stories are being portrayed as wonderful and beautiful and perfect. But remember, there are two ways to dehumanize someone: by dismissing them, and by idolizing them.​

Grr arg.

 

[Tia Maria]

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.

 

[Greg]

When a person thinks they know everything and totally takes over the conversation and talks about everything awesome about their selves.

 

[Judge]

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 do this all the time...regardless of age or gender. I was raised to do so by my folks. Just simple courtesy.

 

[Warmheart]

I myself appreciate the traditional dating rituals. I find them sweet, and am honored by them. I do not assume that these quaint courtship gestures are meant to indicate anything beyond fondness and interest.

With ASD, the beginning of a relationship is challenging for me as dating often takes place in settings with lots of sensory hoopla. (Cue: zoned-out zombie mode! ) Then, there's the mortification at the restaurant as the man realizes that I cannot use a knife and fork simultaneously without sending the food catapulting . (Holy dyspraxia, Batman!) Nothing is funnier than a woman who walks like Bigfoot, wearing a dress. Plus, add my general lack of self-awareness to being rather stimmy, and all it takes is "Wanna go for PIZZA?" to bring on a mindless flap attack!

No wonder I haven't dated in eons. But then it's been 6 1/2 years since my late hubby passed, so I am coming up on my next Pon Farr.....