Based on the emails I’m getting and the comments I’m reading, I guess I should explain the opening story of my Atheism & Dating talk.
The point of my story was to give a funny story involving an awkward date. It wasn’t awkward because she was a little person (the preferred nomenclature, I’m told). It was awkward because she was a little person who didn’t tell me that about herself. I think that was kind of shady and dishonest.
Similarly, it would’ve been just as awkward if the picture she sent me showed her in a certain light to make her appear very tan or dark, but in person, it turned out she was very pale-white. Not because I’m anti-pale-white people. But because she’s not telling the whole truth about herself, about something I would’ve surely noticed when we met in person.
I think it’s important to be upfront and honest about those things. I don’t hide my body-type or skin color if I send someone a picture, because they’ll find out the truth immediately.
That’s why my date with the little person was awkward. The Springer revelation didn’t help much.
Could I have made that point more explicitly? Yes. Should I have used that story at all? Probably not. It’s my fault that I didn’t make my point clear. I would have also used a better choice of words. But what’s done is done. It’s the first time I’ve given that talk and it’ll change if/when I give it again.
Thanks to everyone who understood what I meant with that story for saying as much in the comments. To the rest, I hope this explanation suffices.
I hope regular readers know I would never try to pick on people for things that are obviously beyond their control.
It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."