<p>In order of importance…</p>
<ul>
<li>Does not have a face</li>
<li>Does not have all other body parts</li>
<li>Is not alive</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Short</li>
<li>Fat</li>
<li>Gross</li>
<li>No interest in intellectual matters; huge bro meathead type</li>
<li>Pompous</li>
<li>(Very) religious</li>
<li>Really into politics; thinks he knows everything</li>
<li>Awkward</li>
<li>Does not drink (unless for serious health reasons)</li>
<li>Self righteous</li>
<li>Bad taste (wants to watch Paul Blart and go to Chili’s)</li>
</ul>
<p>Constantly on the phone/texting
high maintenance
no academic/career ambitions
drinks heavily/smokes/does any type of drugs
man hands
ugly hair
thick legs</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you have a cap on how intelligent your girlfriend can be? Wow. I guess you don’t like being threatened!</p>
<p>Mine:
-Mean
-Uninformed
-Dresses badly
-Unintelligent
-Not my religion
-Unrefined
-Likes beer
-Doesn’t like chivalry
-Doesn’t like children</p>
<p>He’s saying his girlfriends IQ has to be greater than 20 points lower than his, not that it has to be less than 20 points lower.</p>
<p>…which means that it would be capped at whatever his IQ is minus 20.</p>
<p>… Dyscalculics don’t do well with >< so I could be wrong, but I could have sworn it meant nobody dumber than 20 points dumber than he is. Which would mean she could be as smart or smarter, or even 20 points dumber, than he is-- just not any lower than that.</p>
<p>Oh, I see.</p>
<p>I think.</p>
<p>F u double negatives >.<</p>
<p>No. His deal breaker was that IQ>20 points lower than he. That means that she must be stupider than that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, no, no, no! First of all, I am a girl. Secondly, you all completely misunderstood what I was saying. If someone having an IQ>20 points (more than 20 points) lower than mine is a dealbreaker, what that means is that I would not want to date someone significantly less intelligent than me. There is no “cap” (ie, upper limit), just a cutoff (ie, lower limit). I know “hard” limits of this sort are shallow – and I’m sure I would happily make an exception for the right guy – but it’s just a generalization.</p>
<p>Read more carefully before commenting ;)</p>
<p>Yay I win!</p>
<p>-Ghetto
-Obnoxious
-Extremely extraverted
-Doesn’t take anything seriously
-Mostly talks about drugs (I don’t care if anyone does weed or even slightly harder stuff, but the fools who go on and on about it are annoying)
-Poor hygiene
-Clingy
-Immature
-Melodramatic</p>
<p>**Doesn’t read or write unless one is forced to. Sorry, this is a BIG one. I’m not expecting anyone to be the next Dostoevsky or Austen, but I judge everyone on this. I ended up losing attraction to people because their basic grammar and syntax sucks. -_-
I can’t help it.</p>
<p>Hmm, if I had to think hard about it, I’d say:</p>
<p>-Mean
-Arrogant/Narcissistic
-Not funny
-Unhygienic
-Conservative (I’m very liberal so it just doesn’t mesh)
-Past a certain threshold of overweight - I’m overweight myself but I can still be active and do things that I like to do, like go to amusement parks. If you can’t do these things with me due to your weight then it probably won’t work.
-Doesn’t like to cuddle
-Refuses to help out with chores (just because you have male genitalia doesn’t mean your skin will melt off if you help me do the dishes)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^ 1,000 cool points for inductive reasoning :D</p>
<p>No. No. No. Your statement was very ambiguous.</p>
<p>Consider: IQ > (20 points lower than mine)</p>
<p>in other words, if his IQ is greater than the quantity of yours minus twenty, it’s a deal-breaker. The inequality signs imply a quantity and thus your statement is ambiguous. So my original reading was certainly valid and you should think before typing.</p>
<p>… You are full of crap. XD</p>
<p>quiet
shy
hairy
BO
Bad hygiene
short (anything under 5 10")
scrubby
immature
liar
chubby(this means anyone who doesn’t have rock hard abs)
Too skinny
Doesn’t work out
fat under chin
Well just not having an above average body
baggy shirts
moody
disrespectful
Smokes a lot
Facial hair(this depends on what type/style/length and stuff.
Sexist
Judgmental
uptight
Doesn’t have a good sense of humor
lies a lot
Doesn’t play/not into sports
Jealous type
Pale
Super conservative
Too needy
No ambitions
Is not planning on getting a good education/Doesn’t care about his future
Sloppy drunk
Smokes too much
Has no talent
No real hobbies or interest</p>
<p>-doesn’t watch 30 Rock</p>
<p>now THAT’S a deal-breaker!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair. I suppose I figured that the order of operations went without saying, since the alternative (only wanting to date people significantly less intelligent) is completely absurd.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>!!! OMG!11!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For those of us who are sane. But given the CC population, I cannot help but recall the Family Guy episode where Stewie creates a clone, but creates him stupider than he so that he might dominate the hapless copy. This sort of thinking is not one that I would put past some CC posters, unfortunately.</p>