🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <57okum$sc7@boursy.news.erols.com>, Jim  <jtitus@erols.com> wrote:
>sheryl@seas.gwu.edu (Sheryl Coppenger) wrote:
>     I certainly agree that you were not flaming Patrick--and my 
>characterization "low blow" was meant more to defend him than to criticize 
>your perception. 

Then you chose your words very poorly IMHO and have no room to criticize
my choice of words.

>But there is a lesson in the misunderstanding.  Do we 
>overspecify based on who we think is likely to like us?    To what extent 
>do people, and to what extent should people, develop criteria based--not 
>on what is important to them,but--on what experience has taught them is 
>the type of person that likes them.  

The old "I'll reject you before you can reject me trick"?  Why bother
in the case of personals?  If a tall woman is going to reject guys
who are 5'8" then just mentioning your height should do it.  Looking for
someone petite is just going to turn away women who would have been fine
with it.

>     Unlike you, however, I would not make my acceptance of discrimination 
>in affairs of the heart depend on whether it is based on, as you put it, 
>"vibrations of the soul" or "cultural baggage."  Leaving aside the 
>question of whether one determines the other anyway, it would seem to me 
>that bigotry based on either culture or the soul would smell equally bad, 

I don't think you understood what I meant.  I was using discrimination
in the non-civil rights sense.  Art is important enough to me, for instance,
that I don't think that someone who doesn't have the same interest in art
or basically the same outlook on art would hold my affection for very
long.  But it's one thing to say that you're looking for someone for
whom art is important and another to say, for instance, "no CPAs" because
your preconceived notions about CPAs say that they have no art in their
souls.  That would be bigotry that smells equally bad, but it wasn't
what I was talking about.

>The reason we tolerate, for example, the phrase "SWF" is that 
>discrimination, in the most personal of human relations, remains the norm. 
>We tolerate it even though we know it is cultural.  As long as racial 
>discrimination permeates dating, it will be difficult to view other forms 
>of physique-based discrimination as anything other than normal 
>preferences. 

Whoa, whoa, whoa.  That doesn't follow at all.  "SWF" like any of the
other specifications, is tolerated in personal ads because nobody has
to associate with anyone in their personal life.  Good reason or bad,
bigoted or not, makes no difference.  "SWF" may mean the person is a
bigot or it may mean the person is only attracted to white people.  Some
people specify eye color or hair color, presumably because they're only
attracted to that type.  In that case it's pretty close to being a fetish
and I know people who won't answer such ads because they feel objectified
(I'm thinking in particular of several Asian women I know).  Whether a
stated preference is personal choice, bigotry or fetish, the person has
a complete right to do that in their personal life (and other people have
complete right to ostracize them as part of their choice of associates).

But "we tolerate bigotry in personal association" does NOT in any way,
shape or form translate to "we decide that every preference is personal
and is no way influenced by cultureal baggage" or, what you seem to be
trying to do here, "we can never talk about the cultural influences".

Besides, you've strayed into age and religion and all sorts of things.  It's
hardly legit for you to limit things to physique at this point.  

>     If people who know what they want waste more of your time than people 
>who don't, you have an unusual existence.  If someone genuinely wants 
>someone like me, and I feel the same about her, I will never view that as 
>a waste of time even if we can't make things work.  

What about

1)  People who have decided that they're only going to marry X, but since
    you're available and willing to have a relationship with them, and
    they would like to have someone to sleep with, they go through the
    motions until they find someone better.  I have known a number of
    people who have been put through this. 

2)  People who actually aren't intentional users, but wind up doing the
    same thing because there's chemistry with someone who doesn't fit
    their preconception.  They can't bring themselves to stay out of the
    person's life but they can't bring themselves to give up their "principles".

3)  People who definitely want X and the partner has X (or apparently
    has X) but loses X over the course of the relationship.  I'm referring
    here to people who want children and then discover that the partner
    is infertile, or want someone athletic and then the person develops
    an illness which doesn't affect normal activities or their personality
    but makes it impossible to be a "jock" anymore.  Instead of adjusting,
    they leave the partner or blame the partner.  After all, as the saying
    goes, we're all just "temporarily abled".  Age, illness or accident
    can change a lot of the superficial qualifications.  How is a woman
    going to feel about that big guy who can swing her around in his
    arms if he injures his back permanently and can't lift her any more?
    How is a man going to feel about the skinny "babe" he married when
    she can't lose all the weight she put on having his kids?  That's
    a major problem with the superficial criteria.

>If someone decides two 
>years into a relationship, for example, that she really never wanted to 
>marry an Episcopalian, or a man with some trait of mine that she always 
>knew about--then I would call it a waste of time.

Well, you and I have different ideas on what the problem is there.  My 
take on the problem is that probably either (1) her mother has been harping 
on her that she will go to Hell if she marries an Episcopalian, thereby 
activating the "undue meddling from society" clause or (2) she knew all
along that she didn't want to marry and Episcopalian and you were "Mr.
Right Now" until she could find a nice Methodist, or (3) changed her
mind about her values as she got older.  IMHO the second option is an
example of you being a victim of someone who *did* know what they wanted
rather than someone who *didn't* know what they wanted.  The third option
is something that nobody can anticipate or do much about.  Most people
do change in one area or another.  Sometimes there is fallout on the
people who love them.

-- 

Sheryl Coppenger    SEAS Computing Facility Staff      sheryl@seas.gwu.edu
                    The George Washington University   (202) 994-6853
                    http://www.seas.gwu.edu/staff/sheryl