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.