Dealbreakers

by: Kate Carraway

May 05, 2009 3:00 PM

Comments: (1)

The size of their apparatus? Their political beliefs? Their choice of entertainment? Their cowboy boots? How do you determine who is undateable?

If you don’t like dogs, we can never date. Sorry. Or, you’re welcome. Either way. “Must love dogs” may be a grody personal-ad cliche, but it holds true as something that I require of men that I might get involved with. Maybe I would develop a crush on someone who isn’t a dog person, but if and when I find out about this soul-darkness, it’s really unlikely that I could date him, or even take him seriously. Don’t like dogs? Dealbreaker.

What we like about the people we like is a rare and unknowable combination of the chemical, the circumstantial, and any number of little appeals, like their laugh or their wrists or the way they pour coffee, those things that slay us for no particular reason. What we get off on is totally particular to each possibility and partner; even if we date the same type of person over and over, what we like about individual people is about them as individuals. Such is the nature of love, or at least the nature of crushes. What we don’t like, though, at least in those nascent days of attraction and coming to dig on someone, is often consistent and consistently small. Some preference or interest or habit emerges that provokes us to hit the "kill" switch and call it off.

I asked my friends to tell me about their dealbreakers — not so much the obvious “ugly” or “stupid” no-gos that wouldn’t allow for an attraction in the first place, but the idiosyncratic ones, the habits and interests that might seem innocuous to other people but are deeply troubling to us. My friend Darcie says “shaved pubes,” Lina says “cowboy boots,” Shaun says “small apparatus.” My friend Ellen has a spectrum of short-term dealbreakers (“can’t grow a beard,” “doesn’t drink,” “anti-choice”) and long-term dealbreakers (“in debt,” “atheist”). Isis says “doesn’t vote,” Sam says “apolitical.” Others are “can’t cook,” “smoker,” “litterbug,” “watches TV,” “lives with parents” and “not into showing affection.” My friend Steve says “I fucking hate ‘shy.’ I can’t understand it. Can’t relate to it. Got no time for it.”

Our dealbreakers, even the silliest ones (come on, cowboy boots?) are sometimes way more about our vision of ourselves and how cool, hot or interesting we think we are than about the girl or guy we’re considering. If someone demonstrates a quality that would fuck with our own perceived desirability, it’s over. “Doesn’t read” is one of my secondary dealbreakers, not so much because I need to talk books with my boyfriend, but because several of my friends, colleagues and family members would understand a non-reader as a boring loser, which could make me seem like a boring loser.

Other, bigger dealbreakers like “apolitical” or “in debt” are self-protection measures, a version of those things we do to prevent future pain, not unlike pushing people away because we like them a whole lot. These dealbreakers stand in for other things we can’t gauge yet, and are a way of attempting to manage our futures: what not liking dogs really says to me is that someone isn’t playful or fun or outdoorsy, is probably fussy and maybe isn’t into kids, which is the real problem.

I used to count “can’t drive” as a dealbreaker, and any ideal Secret Agent Lover Man should be able to, but I’ve dated enough city-bred men who never had occasion to get a licence to abandon that one. Still, wanting to be with a driver is less about the practical implications (I know how to drive, and how to call a taxi), and way more about my not-ridiculous need to be with someone who is likely to be a real grown-up, in possession of some quantifiable markers of adulthood. Plus, watching a man you’re having sex with drive a car in a capable, confident way is sexy along the same lines as watching them play music or do sports or chop wood for the homestead or whatever.

I am apparently pretty OK with scary relationship stuff like “emotional frailty,” “drug addiction,” “non-communicative to the point of high-functioning autism” and “Conservative,” because I feel like these are the places where we have to compromise and work hard to be with the people we’re en route to falling in love with. It’s not that common a condition, to like someone enough to risk getting involved with another messy, damaged human, but it’s a risk we should take. As long as that human has a good attitude about puppies.

What’s your dealbreaker? Leave a comment below or email kcarraway@eyeweekly.com.

Copyright 1991 - 2009 EYE WEEKLY Newspapers Limited. All Rights Reserved. Distribution transmission,
Republication of any materials is strictly prohibited without the prior written consent of EYE WEEKLY.
EYE WEEKLY is a division of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited.

My Life, My Fault

Dealbreakers

Kate Carraway