It's been a long time since I was on a first date


-Consistently refusing to admit you're wrong

-Repeatedly showing disdain (even in "teasing" form) for something I like or care about

-Talking down to me in any way

-Taking self too seriously

-Being all into Ayn Rand (mind you, both my current boyfriend of 7 years and I have read Ayn Rand, even willingly, but are NOT on board with Objectivism. It was more about just having an awareness of those books.)

-Picky eater, unwilling to try new food

-Doesn't read voraciously (I think this explains having read Ayn Rand more than anything - both of us will read anything that falls in our path, even if it's just for comedy value). I guess this is why I don't understand dealbreakers based on literary tastes, because I have extremely catholic (small-c) literary tastes. Although I guess if someone liked wanky Litrachoor like Snow Falling on Cedars or God forbid anything by Rick Moody, I might be forced to re-evaluate. That would fall under "Takes self too seriously" as well.

-Hating cats

-Insisting I take your name if we get married

-Refusing to pick up your share of the housework

-Casual bigotry or hatred of any kind: homophobic remarks, racist remarks, sexist remarks.

All dealbreakers can be broken, but being a jerk to the waiter/waitress or being a stingy tipper would be Big Red Flag Dealbreakers too.

Ooo, I thought of another one: Saying anything resembling the following: "I don't give anything to Goodwill because I don't want poor people to get my stuff." One of my friends is actually marrying a guy who said that the first time I met him. He does a majority of the above, as well. We're all worried about her, quite frankly. She's set on marrying him though, so we plan to just stay around and offer support (and escape if necessary).

I'm not trying to mock anyone, but

I've been reading this blog for about a year and this is the most entertaining one I've seen. Even we all have tastes we like and tastes we find detestable. The fact that the dealbreakers are so varied is what's fun. Some of them I say, "Oh yeah, absolutely!" and some I think, "Huh? why does that matter?"

Mine? Anyone who takes Jacques Derrida or Michel Foucault. (Just kidding, but anyone who takes them so seriously they cannot even smile at the joke would not like me, so it wouldn't really matter what I could tolerate.)

Mine probably boil down to intolerance and close mindedness, which encompass a lot (including intractable racism).

Particular tastes may be significant negatives (e.g. smoking) but if there are other positives, I could work around them.

I've been married forever so a good bit of my thinking on this is hypothetical. I once dropped a prospect because she wanted to see Clint Eastwood "Dirty Harry"movies. What a fascist, I thought. I was much more judgmental, intolerant and closeminded back then.

I do think there is a difference between incompatibilities that can be tolerated enough to stay with someone those that would DQ someone as a committed life partner (spouse or equivalent). Among these would be marked differences in views about money, having children, and marked difference in sexual drives. These are areas which historically are major conflict points in marriages. The money thing can be escaped if one partner does not think it is important and is willing to yield to the one who does, but that's still difficult.

But significant incompatibility drives cannot be fixed and it rarely if ever gets better. It can take awhile to know what the partner's baseline is, maybe six months. But a low drive partner will almost never become a high or even medium drive partner, nor should they be pushed to become something different than they are. Neither high or low is wrong, just incompatible.