Brooke LeBlanc, a woman with a name that sounds like a brand of luxury purse, recently attracted criticism on the internet after she posted a list of “non-negotiable” requirements for her future husband. The New York Post called her list “cringeworthy”. But is it, really?
At the top of the list was her mandatory age requirement of 35 to 42 years old. This is not unreasonable on the surface. LeBlanc is twenty-nine years old herself. (If she thinks that I’m a little too seasoned for her at 58… well, no hard feelings, and bless her heart.) But this range seems a little arbitrary—especially on the lower end. Why is she not willing to consider men between the ages of 28 and 34? That may not be cringeworthy; but it is curious.
She also wants someone who is “funny,” “smart,” “lighthearted,” “masculine,” yada, yada, yada.
I see nothing wrong here. Most of this is dating app boilerplate. All ladies want the fellow who “is as comfortable in a pair of jeans as he is in a tuxedo!” They want the well-rounded gentleman who “succeeds on the field of play as well as in the boardroom!” Bravo!
LeBlanc also wants a man who is “post economic”. This is code for “rich”. But he must also be “still hardworking”. (So if you’ve made your fortune and taken an early retirement, I suppose you don’t make the cut.)
The guy should not have any kids, but should want them in the future. He ideally works in tech. (LeBlanc is herself a tech executive.) He has never been married before.
Interestingly, there is no height requirement on the list. Short guys who are loaded and within the proper age range: take heart.
On balance, I would say that Miss LeBlanc’s list is a mixture of pie-in-the-sky stretch goals and relatively modest requirements. Her non-negotiables lean heavily on the economic side. But once again, she isn’t saying that she needs a 6’4” male model or a Greek god descended from Mount Olympus.
Granted, there is something crass about posting a list like this on the internet. I suspect, however, that many people, both men and women, maintain such lists. The only difference is that most people keep such lists to themselves.
But the lists are there, nonetheless. When a prospective date or suitor doesn’t meet the non-negotiable requirements, they are dispatched with a euphemism like “there’s just no chemistry between us,” or “we’re simply not a good match.”
It’s very easy to forget that, despite the idealization of romance in novels, movies, and pop songs, it is actually a rather cold-hearted, materialistic affair when you get down to brass tacks. Romance and dating are among the few areas of life in which it is still perfectly acceptable to be discriminatory. Ageism, racism, looksism, heightism, economic snobbery: they’re all fair game when someone is choosing a romantic partner.
I reiterate: this goes for men as well as women. Because our culture is perpetually afraid of offending women, there is somewhat less of a tendency to call out women when they’re being superficial. But women are no less superficial than men. (If you doubt that, consider all the middle-aged men who were slobbering over Sidney Sweeney’s inane Novig commercial last week.)
Brooke LeBlanc is easy on the eyes and still under thirty. She has her own money. If her X feed is any indication, she has an army of online male poodles, who eagerly jump through hoops for any sign of positive attention from her. (LeBlanc states that her X following is 88% male, and I see no reason to dispute this claim.)
Why should she not ask for the moon? And if she is going to ask for the moon, is there anything wrong with being explicit about its specifications?
-ET