What, he should date women he’s not attracted to just to make himself look better? So the man has a type. So what?
I agree with kayaker that it could be awkward, as it seems to be suspiciously restrictive, and it raises the possibility of superficiality. Sure, I guess we all have a type. I do, but I’ve had relationships with lots of women who were not “my type”, some of which turned out to be very important.
I tend to think that it’s more relevant to be restrictive in terms of personality traits than of physical appearance.
I’d never heard the term “yellow flag” either but it was mentioned upthread and I ran with it. I thought it could be used to make a worthwhile distinction.
Sure, it could be evidence of superficiality or of stereotyping, but I’d still be very, very wary of judging anyone’s sexual preferences, whatever they may be - so long as they are legal.
Of course, but legality is completely different matter.
Imagine you’re the new girlfriend of kayaker’s nephew and you happen to be Chinese (or Korean). Wouldn’t you be very concerned when you discovered that all of his previous girlfriends had the same ethnicity ? Wouldn’t you wonder whether he chose you as a person or your physical type ? That’s a legitimate concern.
A tall man discovers that his current date’s exes have all been tall men. Should he be concerned?
To the degree the Asian specificity raises caution it would be to investigate if the man holds any specific stereotypes that he finds appealing. Finding physical types attractive is one thing; being reduced to and pigeonholed as a stereotype is another, and brings in baggage.
Just wanted to add, that, at the beach, a red flag means caution; swim at your own risk, if you’re a good swimmer — but two red flags, that’s do not go in; closed to the public; I say again: do not go in!
Huh. The beach I’ve gone to is a yellow flag means the possible rough water but you are allowed in, and one red flag is all out of the water by the lifeguards. There is no two red flag.
I feel like the number of relationships makes a big difference. Someone is 30, never dated much. Two long twem relationships, both [any highly specific type], no problem.
Someone is 40, serial monogamous, has had 8 relationships that lasted 6 months-2 years, all [highly specific type]? That’s a red flag.
There is a difference between “has a type” and “has an issue”. If there is any racial or ethnic group you absolutely rule out dating, categorically, or if there is one ethnic or racial type (or anything else, really) that you prefer so strongly that you categorically rule out everyone else, that’s hot.
If you like Latin women, that’s fine. If, when finding out the woman you thought was Latin is actually a light skin black woman, your interest shrivels and dies, not fine.
That’s not what anyone is saying, though. A red flag is a serious concern that must be addressed for things to continue (or a reason to pull out if addressing then doesn’t work) because of the future risk. A deal breaker means there’s no reason to even address it as it’s unfixable and the best you can say is that at least you found out now.
A “slight cause for concern” would be more like the Yellow Flag (that I also never hear used in this context).
See, the information post is exactly why I say a red flag isn’t a dealbreaker. You brought up someone who saw multiple red flags. But how can that be possible if only one is a dealbreaker?
What I’m seeing by those who call it a dealbreaker is a lack of acknowledgement of a middle ground. There’s room between something that is merely a warning (i.e. something to pay attention to), and something that is a dealbreaker, which would mean the relationship should end right that second.
A red flag is a potential dealbreaker. It’s a sign that there may be something there that would mean you should end the relationship. And thus it is something you need to investigate right away, rather than just ignore.
The red flag analogy in a race is fine. A red flag doesn’t end the race. It means to means stop in place. The race is suspended, but most often will continue eventually. The only issue is that a lot of times a relationship red flag means that the relationship won’t continue after it stops. But it can.
And that aligns with article linked near the start of the thread. The red flag examples included possible reasons they wouldn’t be a dealbreaker, e.g. the person has genuinely changed.
I realize that we are all working off our own nuanced definitions, but in my mind a red flag signals danger: this person is demonstrating some sign of toxic behavior, which is universally bad or debilitating. Red flags, in my opinion, are indicators that the person is, for example, abusive, or narcissistic, or has an untreated bipolar disorder.
A deal breaker, in my mind, is more of a behavior than is simply unacceptable for the other person. Red flags should be deal breakers, but there can be reasons that you don’t go forward that aren’t necessarily signs of danger.
If you don’t want kids, and the other person does, that might be a deal breaker, but it’s not a red flag, in my opinion. If somebody else asked you about this person as a dating prospect, you probably wouldn’t go “he didn’t want kids - huge red flag”. Rather, I’d expect it to be more akin to “We weren’t compatible- he wanted a family and I wasn’t ready”. You might still endorse them as a partner, even if you weren’t the right match.
With a red flag, I think it’s different. For example, if you got together with somebody and they always made excuses for why you couldn’t visit their home, and you then found out that they were married, the excuses about their living situation (“He always said it was too messy, or that his roommate hated when guests came over”) were the red flags that signaled a reason to run away. And if you were reminiscing about the experience, I’d expect you to say something that made clear this person is a bad partner, not just an incompatible one.
For me, not liking animals, or being a fussy eater, is a deal breaker.
But a red flag is something like “she throws a fit if she doesn’t get her way” or “she always waits a few days to text back, but expects me to respond immediately”. They aren’t merely personality issues that might mean we aren’t good together; rather, they indicate a bigger concern about a person’s unhealthy interactions with the world. If you notice them, there’s no reason to decide if you can tolerate them - that’s why they are red flags! Stop! Don’t waste your time! There’s no reason to go on!
And that’s why I disagree that a red flag is (or should be) a dealbreaker. Those excuses could exist for other reasons. They are not inherently a reason that you should have broken up with the person. The excuses are in fact a warning that a dealbreaker may be present.
I see your point.
I guess what I’m trying to draw is a distinction between those things that are your personal lines in the sand - the things that should signal to you that this is not a compatible relationship- and those things that are more universal warnings that never deserve compromise.
Whatever you want to call them, when entering a relationship I think that these are both important to recognize, even if your reaction may be different: one are little quirks that you don’t want to tolerate (as is your right), and others are traits indicative of abuse or trauma which should be reasons to leave for your own protection.
If you see signs you merely don’t like, you can decide if you can get past them. They eat with their mouth open; they have horrible taste in music; they keep mentioning their ex.
Maybe these are trivial. Maybe you can figure out that they are fixable, or that you were not justified in being worried. And, of course, maybe your tolerance of such things is greater than another person’s, so you don’t have as hard a time getting past them.
But, there are also going to be other things that don’t deserve your studied consideration, and should not be the basis of a wait and see attitude. In my mind, these are signs of abuse, but I can imagine that other people might have different standards of tolerance. My point, though, is that some concerns don’t justify hesitation - they are serious enough that they, and they alone, are enough to end the relationship, full stop.
And, I believe, it’s important to identify these concerns and call them out when you see them. If every concern is met with mere hesitation, and a “let’s just see how this turns out” attitude, it creates risks that a person is going to fall into a very bad situation that they will struggle to escape. Some things don’t get a second chance: whether called “red flags” or “dealbreakers”, they are decidedly different than simple incompatibility.
That’s a very good point and I’d say that he shouldn’t be concerned in this case, although height is not something one can change or control, like ethnicity.
Still, I feel there’s a difference but I cannot really put my finger on it. Perhaps it has to do with how much out of your way you have to go to find a mate that suits you. There are tall people everywhere, but Koreans are rare in many places. If kayaker’s nephew lives in such a place, it does indicate a tendency to “target” a highly specific demographic. This raises more troubling questions than a preference for tall partners, as the latter can be found all around the world.
To me a red flag is a legit reason to stop the relationship. This could include talking with the other person to address or mitigate the red flag issue, so as not to be a red flag. A red flag can also be ignored, and one can proceed at their own risk and peril. A red flag does not mean the relationship is over, just that it should be over.
A deal breaker is the reason (normally single issue) to end a relationship. It does not have to be a red flag and could be a minor ‘the straw that broke the camels back’ type of issue. If someone says that it’s a dealbreaker but does not end the relationship is was not, by definition, a dealbreaker.
So a red flag is the legitimate reason that would justify an exit of the relationship, a deal breaker is the reason that ended the relationship justified or not.
I’m just looking here, is all:
(I first googled it when I was at the beach and saw two flags go down to one flag and wondered, wait, why are they doing that?)
On my beach it’s white flag (minimal hazard), red flag (moderate hazard), black flag (you’re not going anywhere near the water).
I’d never heard “yellow flags” used in the relationship context, until just now. I was listening to the most recent episode of NPR’s Consider This about the Manti Te’o catfishing incident, when one of the guest experts said:
JUNCO: I understand the motivation to look for love, the motivation to, you know, at the beginning of any relationship, online or not, we ignore yellow flags. We ignore red flags. This is not something unique to Manti. This is all humans.
So there it is, in the wild!
Which also brings up that I almost always hear red flags (and I guess yellow) used in the past tense. It’s stuff like “that was a big red flag I should have seen” or “he ignored so many red flags” instead of “my boyfriend just kicked a dog, is that a red flag?”
Interesting. Two sets of beaches I’ve spent at time at.
And New Jersey.
Checking and it’s California too.
I see that USLA lists as you stated. I’ve just not been anywhere that goes by that. That I recall anyway. Where were you that does?
Virginia Beach. “One red flag means that the surf is high or there are dangerous currents, or both. Visitors are still allowed to swim if there is a red flag, but should use extreme caution. Two red flags, however, means that the water is closed to swimming, as conditions are too dangerous for even the strongest swimmers.”