Offered without commentary.


Tod Kelly

Tod is a writer from the Pacific Northwest. He is also serves as Executive Producer and host of both the 7 Deadly Sins Show at Portland's historic Mission Theatre and 7DS: Pants On Fire! at the White Eagle Hotel & Saloon. He is  a regular inactive for Marie Claire International and the Daily Beast, and is currently writing a book on the sudden rise of exorcisms in the United States. Follow him on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

46 Responses

  1. Avatar greginak says:

    Interesting he name checks multi multi married Liz Taylor as an example of not decedent chickitude.Report

  2. Avatar Damon says:

    I will say I agree with this “spiritual but not religious,” criticism. I’ve seen that on hundreds of dating profiles, and, of the women I’ve met, it was BS.Report

    • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Damon says:

      Mostly because “atheism” is worse than Satanism to most Americans, so most people don’t know how to say “I’m not really a Christian or go to church, but I’m not like “God can’t exist!”.

      Most people think atheism is all being really, really anti-religious — instead of just, you know, totally not religious. (Which is a perfectly valid form of atheism). So if you’re actually the whole ‘weak’ atheist thing — you’re not a believer, but you don’t really think much on religion, what do you say?

      Spiritual but not religious is what someone who doesn’t believe, but doesn’t have any active disbeliefs say. They might go on to believe in things like yoga or karma, but mostly they just go through life not thinking about religion or God unless a church gets in their way.Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Morat20 says:

        This, The Hugo Award controversy and a whole lot of other things makes me think we will have a large and prolonged culture war on the Net.Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Morat20 says:

        Meant as a general comment. Not a response to MoratReport

      • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Morat20 says:

        How would a large and prolonged culture war be distinguishable from the internet now?Report

      • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to Morat20 says:

        It’s a dating profile, so mission number one is don’t scare away potential mates with unpleasant candor. “Atheist” = “eats babies” for some people, so it’s a label to eschew unless you want to filter out everyone but atheists. In which case, the young lady looking for love online may find herself learning a lot more about the vital importance of Objectivism than she likely really wanted.Report

      • Avatar Michael Drew in reply to Morat20 says:

        I don’t share the sense that people who are nonbelievers often say “spiritual” rather than nothing at all, or “humanist” or whatever. I’m sure some do, but my sense is that most who say they are spiritual feel that they are in fact spiritual in some real way (BS or not), not just not a member of a particular religion.Report

      • Avatar Road Scholar in reply to Morat20 says:

        On my Facebook profile I list my religion as “colorless green ideas sleep furiously” reflecting my conviction that God-talk is, in the final analysis, just a bunch of meaningless jabbering.Report

    • Avatar greginak in reply to Damon says:

      I’ve always found spiritual to mean something between vague non-denominational Christian with a mix of new agey or eastern beliefs to completely New Age. It’s the all you can eat buffet of religious labels.Report

    • Avatar Michael Drew in reply to Damon says:


      What is your standard for “not BS” here? Or eve, just what do yo mean by BS? That whatever they thought they believed was just hooey (unlike a real spiritualism)? Or that they weren’t in any reasonable way spiritual, even by their own definition – you just determined that even they didn’t think they were actually spiritual and had just put it up on their profile because they iced the sound of it or whatever?

      What would have needed to be true for it not to be BS in their cases?Report

    • Avatar El Muneco in reply to Damon says:

      I agree it’s a problem that there’s only one category for “none of the above”, since it links “I don’t go to church” with “believes whatever woo is flavor-of-the-month” with the few hundred throwback Deist/panenthiests like myself.

      Subcategories that are probably less compatible with each other than with an honest religious-but-tolerant match…Report

    • Avatar Damon in reply to Damon says:


      As Burt said, it’s a phrase designed to complete filling out a form label but in the least offensive to the most people way. I understand that. It’s similar to “average” when describing body size. It covers a LOT of ground. That’s fine, but “spiritual” doesn’t mean doing yoga to me, unless you’re following the underlying tenants of the practice, not just going to keep “fit”. It’s a fascination, a sense of wonder, in the material world. It’s the belief that the complexities of the universe are there to be discovered and experienced. That’s about as good as I can think early in the morning without coffee.

      Why it’s BS is that attitude I described is rarely found. Nor is any other characteristic I could ever reasonably attribute to that word, describe most of the women I’ve read/met/dated who used that word in a profile.Report

  3. Avatar Kolohe says:

    I’d say the commentary you made for the Thursday throwback post is exactly on point for this post.Report

  4. Avatar Kolohe says:

    Or else Adrian Cronauer’s ordinal ranking of historical white men needs to be updated.Report

  5. Avatar Saul Degraw says:

    I would say that the Far Right is entering into Mass ResistanceReport

  6. Avatar veronica d says:

    But seriously tho, what’s with all the cupcake hate? Cupcakes are single serving cakes. They’re yummy.


    Myself, I do sense that modern urban women are rather — for lack of a better term — practical. And about that, we can come up with a bunch of flimsy, non-falsifiable theories as to why, which will say more about us than about them. But yeah, I know plenty of darling femme girls with their retro-hipster dresses and their twee bicycles — and, let’s be honest, their satisfactory day job along with their no particular need for a man.

    ’Cept, you know, having a boyfriend is nice. Since most gals aren’t really all that gay. And the alpha-fuck finance guys are basically intolerable and the nerds are spiraling down the drains of gender fail, waiting for their robot waifus to finally come, and the bro-dudes haven’t nearly grown up. Except yeah, the bro-dudes are basically the best of the lot. You can date them, provided you stay aware that there will never be another man like your dad.

    But then, you don’t want to be a woman like your mom. A lovely summer dress, hanging sheets on the clothesline outside your well-appointed suburban home — it’s a lovely aesthetic. But you went to college and have mad photoshop skills. You know you cannot have it all, but what you have is awfully nice.

    If only your boyfriend would do the dishes now and again. But you ain’t going to his place to eat: two crass roommates and one tattered couch that smells like farts.

    But anyway, you just got a new lavender cardigan, and it’s adorbz, and the weather is nice, so time to ride your bike. You wear sneakers pretty much every day.


    Anyway, I can see how a certain kind of troglodyte would hate modern women. We hate them back.Report

    • Avatar James K in reply to veronica d says:


      But seriously tho, what’s with all the cupcake hate? Cupcakes are single serving cakes. They’re yummy.

      I’m not a big fan of cupcakes because to me they just look like a bland muffin covered in an excess of icing in a vain effort to make it interesting, but that may just be me. I’m definitely on board with single-serve cake = awesome though.Report

      • Avatar veronica d in reply to James K says:

        Well, the the cakey parts of a cupcake seem basically like the cakey parts of cake. They can get dried out more easily, but one can find them done well. They do often have an abundance of frosting. To me this seems a feature not a bug.

        But anyway, I don’t think this is really about the actual merits of the confection. Instead, they seem to have become a cultural marker of a certain kind of urban twee.

        Speaking of which, I wore the cutest little skirt today! When I twirl around it does the thing.

        Anyway, yeah. I think I’ll get some cupcakes later.Report

      • Avatar dragonfrog in reply to James K says:

        I don’t exactly hate cupcakes, but I’m not going to go eating one for pleasure. I don’t dislike the cupcake form factor itself – I just dislike the cake they’re made out of, regardless of its shape and size.

        I like good cake a lot, and so dislike bad cake (in contrast, I don’t have much appreciation for good wine, so I’m perfectly happy drinking crummy cheap plonk). Bad cake exists as full sized cakes and as cupcakes, but I’ve never encountered good cake in any form but full sized cakes.Report

      • Avatar dragonfrog in reply to James K says:

        And yes I realize my definition of “good cake” is my own, and it’s no less legit to consider light, fluffy, relatively bland cakes “good” ones and denser, fuller flavoured cakes “bad”.Report

      • Avatar James K in reply to James K says:


        I guess I’m just more of a muffin guy, since I’m not a big fan of icing.

        I think you’re right though, its not really about cupcakes. Also, congratulations on the acquisition of your new skirt.Report

    • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to veronica d says:


      It is just Hipster backlash especially at the diabetically inducing twee decor of many hipster or wanna-be hipster cupcake shops.

      Anything that rises to high popularity is going to attract dissenters.Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        There is a cupcake store called Cake Tin that has a branch at JFK. The design of the JFK outlet has deliberate and delicate 1890s look that is the very definition of twee.Report

      • Avatar veronica d in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        @saul-degraw — Can someone actually be a “wanna-be hipster”? Which, is there some level of real authenticity that one must strive for to achieve actual hipsterdom?

        “I’m sorry, but you were not nearly smug and ironic enough to be properly hipster. Hipster fail!”

        (Wait. Actually, now that you mention it, I can totally hear a hipster saying that to another hipster. Or something.)

        But still.Report

      • Avatar Saul DeGraw in reply to Saul Degraw says:


        I’ve seen that place at JFK.


        I suppose that is a fair point. I think Hipsters tastes and aesthetics are becoming pretty generic and homogeneous and reaching peak saturation. Maybe this means the shabby chic of hipsterdom is on the way out but maybe we are just entering an age where cultures survive longer by just going niche. To be a hipster place, you need reclaimed wood, corrugated steel, edison bulbs (see Lee’s comment on the 1890s), seasonal and local stuff if you sell food, etc.Report

    • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to veronica d says:

      @veronica-d has it ever occurred to women that they might be a tad too picky when it comes to having a boyfriend? Your three stereotypes are really like nothing that exists in reality anymore than a man’s stereotypes about women. At least from my experience, I’m neither a bro-dude, a nerd, or an alpha fuck finance guy. I live alone, keep my apartment clean, have a decent career, cook, dance, and keep in shape. Yet, I am single.Report

    • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to veronica d says:

      Was this comment supposed to be satire?Report

  7. Avatar aaron david says:

    Mmm… If you are going to offer something without commentary, don’t commentary.

    Also, Kulure Whar!Report

  8. Avatar Will Truman says:

    lordy lordy (no pun intended) I’m glad I’m not single.

    Also, almost nothing good begins with the words “The problem with [broad demographic] [men/women] is…”

    The religion question on a dating profile strikes me as something that ought to be optional to answer. If it’s important to a person, it will be answered. If it’s important to the people reading profiles, they will choose those that answered correctly. And this is good and efficient and anything else is a waste of people’s time.

    (I was, briefly, on a Christian dating site. That was, it turned out, a great waste of time. Actually probably got more dates from that site than any other – a very high hit rate – but… I wasn’t the sort of Christian any of them were looking for. Even the one who was very smitten with me, who was pretty cool and who under other circumstances thing might have worked out with. But it wasn’t going to work out because That.)Report

  9. Avatar Rose Woodhouse says:

    Also known as Why I Only Date Noble Savages.

  10. Avatar veronica d says:

    Here’s the thing thing about articles like this: they are insipid. Which, does anyone here think that cool, white, secular women are lining up to date this turd? Really? Who is the audience for this? The women? (As if!) Others who will not date us? Fine.

    I wouldn’t want to date him. I assume the feeling is mutual, but why point it out? Why belabor the issue? Why make it about dating rather than instead making a general statement about how contemporary culture is prone to admire little things, instead of being Nietzsche-esque?

    Saying “I won’t date people of type X” seems like a weird status play. Who cares? Instead just say “I don’t like people who do X.” It gets to the point and it’s way less sexist. Plus then we don’t have to listen to tedious recollections about his dates.

    I wonder what the woman in the story has to say about him? (I’ve heard enough “You wouldn’t believe this guy I dated…” stories, such that I cannot help but imagine there is one here.)


    Hey! Guess what! I won’t date any guy who is transphobic and likes #gamergate.

    My dating pool has now changed not at all compared to what it otherwise would have been.Report

    • Avatar Michael Drew in reply to veronica d says:

      He might not want to date you, but he might in an alternate universe want to date some of them (if they were somewhat different). If he finds them attractive (though ideally they’d be a little different were he to date them – but still, they’re attractive), and he knows he’s not going to get any dates with them no matter, so why not rant about their perceived inadequacies? ‘Yeah, I’d like to have dated you in a different time and place, but since we’re not there, here’s why, though you’re attractive, I really don’t care that I’m not going to get any dates with you: you’re insufferable in the actual here and now anyway.’ (Impotency rage.) What’s the downside for him? Your scorn? Feh.Report

  11. Avatar zic says:

    According to wikipedia, Lopez gained her first regular high-profile job as a Fly Girl dancer on In Living Color in 1991, where she remained a regular until she decided to pursue an acting career in 1993.

    So even his timeline is confused.Report

  12. Avatar Kim says:

    Just what I needed, a toomey reference to start the day.Report