Cary doesn't delve into this cultural (or pan-cultural) idea of the "unclean woman". Cary also doesn't address domestic cleanliness as a possible interpretation of "can't stand someone who is not clean". Both concepts are loaded with unfavorable and unfair characterizations of women, i.e. a woman who isn't pure, or a woman who doesn't know how to clean house. Is it a possibility that a few men out there might read the word clean in that context in order to mean the above? I say it's possible, though I'm sure plenty of men think it merely pertains to personal cleanliness, in which case, it could be much less vaguely put if the requirement listed "can't stand someone who doesn't maintain good personal hygiene". That pretty much covers not taking showers and stuff. In light of that, it begs the question as to why such a vague term was used? In order to avoid stating the above?

In any case I agree with Cary that this Ms. Well-Showered should give some of these men a chance despite their picking the "can't stand someone who is not clean" option, because as illustrated above, that sentence is ripe for interpretation.

P.S. To be clean also refers to one who is free of drug use. Agh!

I usually don't want oral sex performed on me unless I've recently taken a shower and not gone poop since the shower, plus if I've gone to the gym that day is a factor too. My area is covered with hair, though clipped and occasionally hair free, but geesh, I have been peeing all day. I've also probably gone number 2 at some point and it may not have been before the shower and without a washing, I just don't feel that comfortable with a guy sticking his tounge anywhere near a place that may have some trace amounts of poo, just like I ain't rimming my partner if he hasn't showered, finding little bits of lint or toilet tissue wrapped in the hair is just, um, not sexy!

Oy! This guy is never going to find a lady friend if all he does is park his ever-widening butt in front of the computer and type out his multiple, multiple, multiple and repetitious complaints.

Instead of therapy, I suggest that Brightstar and anyone in a Brightstar-like toxic funk try one full month with NO COMPUTER WHATSOEVER. That means no online conversations or rants. Instead, go outside. Join a running club and do citizens' races. Go on a Sierra Club hike or river-rafting trip. Join a ski club and try some new trails. Volunteer for Habitat for Humanity and help build a house for some impoverished family. Just GET OUT OF DOORS, with other people doing something wholesome (clean, maybe?) and stay away from the computer.

an I got a hot date Saturday nite with a Latina!

I was confused until I read the full range of options that someone thoughtfully provided. And now I think I'm definitely in the "yeah that's odd" camp. I mean, there are a lot of things on that list that jump right to the front of the line. A lot of them are some variation of "I can't stand someone who is a complete asshole." I would click a bunch of those.

The only thing I can think of, though, is that you're humming along, clicking abhorrent personality traits, when all of a sudden you get to "clean" and you are stopped in your tracks: "Wait, whoa, there's the possibility that someone could show up completely covered in mud and debris? Okay, I don't want that. That's basic. I better click it just to be on the safe side."

Because when I saw that option rear its little head, I kind of wanted to click it (in my imaginary profile), just to make sure. It's kind of like seeing an option that reads, "I can't stand someone who walks on all fours." I'm like, yeah, totally, I definitely want to screen for that. It wouldn't have occurred to me, but hey, since it's here..."

Does that make sense? If that's NOT the process that goes on in the heads of most respondents, then I'll go with the weird sexual hang-up, but only in a pinch. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Oh and also, fuck e-harmony.

Some of these scenarios in the post thread are hysterically funny. Like yours, thanks for the laugh:

"The only thing I can think of, though, is that you're humming along, clicking abhorrent personality traits, when all of a sudden you get to "clean" and you are stopped in your tracks: "Wait, whoa, there's the possibility that someone could show up completely covered in mud and debris? Okay, I don't want that. That's basic. I better click it just to be on the safe side.""

It's just so funny to think of clean vs. not clean and having to choose. Really good post.

Early in the thread, someone posted eharmony's list of traits to pick from.

I can get it down to 13 essential things I can't stand, and "not clean" isn't on there. I'd rather date a man who needs a shower than a racist or an addict.

It's not that men like clean women that's perplexing, it's the priority they place on it. It's also funny, given the stats on men versus women washing their hands after going potty which were posted on Broadsheet recently. According to surveys, women mostly are pretty clean; guys mostly, by their own admission, are not.

During my brief forray into eHarmony, which I ended after multiple attempts to match me up with closet cases, I too noticed this "clean" thing coming up often in the "can't stands". I too puzzled over what it meant, exactly. The question is so ambiguous that I imagine every man who checks it probably thinks it means something different.

I'm a lousy housekeeper, I know this about myself. It has no feminist/soci-political meaning. I just hate cleaning. So if a guy checked this I tended to pass, for both our sakes, figuring I wouldn't be passing any white glove test of my dusting skills.

But the idea that it might mean physically, or perhaps spiritually, clean also occured to me. Is showering once a day considered clean enough? Does it mean fully waxed? Does it mean no dirty talk in bed? Does it mean a lifetime of two minute missionary sex with the lights out and no noise?

I sympathize with the writer in that any woman who has had a negetive oral sex experience can't help but go there too. eHarmony doesn't provide a "I can't stand women who expect me to go down on them" choice, which would maybe be clearer for everyone involved. (They might also consider adding a "I can't stand women but my religion forces me to pretend my sexual orientation is straight lest I burn in hell," choice.)

I agree that the writer (and I) probably read too much into that question, but it's almost impossible not too in the controlled environment that eHarmony enforces onto early communication stages. You can't just ask a question, you have to choose from a list of their questions. So you struggle to find out the information you actually want to know using the limited tools available.

In the end I realized that if I was going to find the guy with the qualities that were important to me, I wasn't going to find him on eHarmony. This was a much easier solution than dissecting exactly what was meant by "not clean".