What are the qualities you require a person to have before considering a relationship with them?  (employment, education, a pulse, etc.)

 

What qualities will you NOT accept?  (unemployment, illiteracy, room temperature liver, etc.)

 

(Both questions should be related to what you consider 'show stoppers'.)

Views: 90

Replies to This Discussion

Watch how a man (or woman) treats a waitress, a child, an animal... even a pest.  How they deal with ingratiated, subordinate, weaker, or seemingly inconvenient creatures tells a lot about their human substance.

My only show stoppers are: Someone who lacks understanding of others IE: They take them for granted because they are ignorant of how damaging child abuse and/or neglect is or other heavily taxing stressful situations.

I don't mind what they believe. Most of my family is religious but they are liberal in their beliefs. They tend to steer clear of people who claim certainty like Creationists.

 

I prefer the woman to be Agnostic at least. I have a thing for brunettes. A severe weakness to brunettes in fact.

 

I prefer them to be educated enough to have a basic grasp of reality (which includes the lack of belief in superstition)

 

Other than that, I prefer they be physically attractive but personality and intelligence are a big thing for me. And they need to be open minded enough to be willing to change their beliefs when evidence contradicts their belief.

 

I'm not too picky or judgmental. Although I'm more attracted to slender brunettes that are latina, asian and/or caucasian.

 

P.S: I'm openly Atheist and Anti-Religious on my Facebook page so I can use my page as a way to gauge the woman's understanding, open-mindedness and acceptance.

 

Florida seems to be open minded. I'm friends with a conservative Muslim and a Conservative Southern Baptist (who is a Childhood friend) and I usually update my page with several things, among them being anti-religious (usually in the form of outrage of immoral acts of violence). I made it very clear lol and even they seem to have no issue with it.

 

Orlando seems to be a place where people don't judge others too often on belief. Which is why I literally only found out about how hateful Theists can be over the internet. I never met a bigoted judgmental Theist irl before in Orlando, except 2 Muslims, one of them being a former close childhood friend whom I don't talk to anymore.

"Someone who lacks understanding of others IE: They take them for granted because they are ignorant of how damaging child abuse and/or neglect is or other heavily taxing stressful situations."

 

This is a prerequisite for any possible relationship I would have... because I have lived through the perfect storm of abuse, immense chronic stress, and neglect. I highly doubt I will come across a woman I'm attracted to who has shared the same experiences, so an ability to understand my burden and empathize is absolutely critical.

Doesn't mater. It works or it doesn't.  My wife and I are divorcing after 26 great years. The qualities don't matter, it's how much you share the same perception of the future. And when you aren't seeing the same future.... get divorced, don't live a life the way you are supposed to, live it the way it is.
i wouldnt mind meeting a xtian... just to gain a convert to our side. no woman could resist my constant bombardment of logic.

Well, over the years, I've gradually found, through experimentation, what I can and can't put up with, as well as what I find highly desirable in a woman.  The list isn't comprehensive, but is a good set of guidelines that helps eliminate the worst mismatches.

 

Must-not-haves:

 No women with kids.

 No woman who doesn't want (or can't have) kids. 

 No smokers, drug users (including pot) or heavy drinkers.

 No highly religious people.

 No liberals.

 No vegetarians, animal-rights people, gun-control proponents or environmental nuts.

 No women with severe mental health issues.

 No cheaters.

 No one without a job, a car and their own place to live.

 No commitment-phobes.

 No immature, childish, selfish or irresponsible women. (I know some people would say

   that that eliminates all of them, but I don't believe that.)

 No chronically poverty-stricken types.

 Not irrational.

 

Must-haves:

 Shared goals and similar values.

 

Highly desirable traits:

 Extremely intelligent. (The more the better)

 Educated (formally or otherwise)

 Optimistic.

 Creative.

 Self-reliant.

 Low maintenance (If you have to ask what this means, then you aren't.)

 Good sense of humor.

 Confident.

 Non-urban.

 Outdoorsy.

 Wide variety of interests; kind of a Renaissance Woman.

 Well-balanced.

 Reasonably fit.

 Active & energetic.

 Likes animals.

 Like hunting, fishing, hiking, etc.

 

Preferred:

 No sports fans.

 No picky eaters.

 

Nice to have: (But completely optional)

 Cute.

 Tall.

 Brunette. (Hey, we've all got our favorites; it's just a slight preference.)

 

Because they're tasty?
Excellent point.  If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why make them out of meat? };-)

Actually, I'm a vegetarian, but not for moral reasons.  I don't care what they do to Bambi's mother.

 

I don't really like most meat.  The only kind I can really say that I actively like is lamb.

This is what's known as a trick question. The two things have nothing to do with each other.  Humans are built to eat meat; that's what the pointy teeth are for.  But the fact that I am a carnivore doesn't stop me from liking animals.

 

The part about "rights" is bogus.  Such things are not inherent; rights are what we often call privileges granted by humans to other humans.  The only absolute "right" anyone has is the right to live until you die.  Everything else is a privilege accorded by others.

You're wrong on this one.  You're not a carnivore.  You're an omnivore.  If you ate only meat, you'd have major health problems, since your body isn't evolved for that.

You're partly correct, Joseph.  Humans are typically regarded as omnivores; I was speaking figuratively, not in the strict sense of biological classification.

 

However, you do have things backwards regarding eating meat.  It is entirely possible to live on only meat, which is easily proven, as Eskimos did so for thousands of years.  

 

But humans are technically unable to live on an entirely herbivorous diet, because it lacks the vitamin B complex, which is only found in animal-derived foods and is essential for life. Modern "vegans" get around this by eating vitamin tablets, but without that artificial assistance, deficiency disease is inevitable in the form of Biermer's disease (pernicious anemia), which is fatal. The human body is not evolved for a vegetable-only diet.

Granted, taking artificial vitamins may not seem like a big deal, but it does demonstrate why primitive societies are never exclusively vegetarian, but always include at least some animal protein in their diet. 

 

No sweat; you had the right idea; you just had it turned around.  If you ate only vegetables you'd have major health problems, all right.  Death is about as major as it gets.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

Latest Activity

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service