He won't stop at that

Juju333

Senior Member
French
Sophie: My new boyfriend hasn't seen me naked yet, and I'm scared that when he finds out I have a big birthmark on my belly, he will be turned off.
Alex: No, he won't stop at that (meaning he won't stop at a birthmark so that he dumps you)

Does it make sense? The bolded part?

Thank you a lot.
 
  • dojibear

    Senior Member
    AE (US English)
    What does "stop" mean? How does "stop" fit this situation? Stop what? Stop doing what? You need a different verb, not "stop".

    Sophie worries that "He will be turned off". She worries that she will seem unattractive to him, because of the birthmark.

    You need to express "be turned off" or "find her unattractive", not "stop doing something".
     

    Egmont

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    ... Alex: No, he won't stop at that (meaning he won't stop at a birthmark so that he dumps you)

    Does it make sense? The bolded part? ...
    Yes, it makes sense. I understand it to mean that he won't stop looking at her when he comes to her belly. His eyes will keep moving, up or down from there, to other parts of her body (that are usually more interesting to boyfriends).
     

    Juju333

    Senior Member
    French
    I want it to mean that it takes more in a relationship (in general) to be turned off for a man. It seems like it's a french expression and it doesn't exist in English, it's too bad.
     

    morior_invictus

    Senior Member
    Slovak
    The problem with your scenario, juju, is that Alex is not really addressing Sophie’s concern however idiomatically he expresses the idea of her boyfriend’s not breaking up with her solely based on her birthmark which could render his (normally idiomatic/natural) answer unnatural in the given context. She is worried about how her boyfriend will perceive her naked body (i.e. her concern is primarily body image related and that is what the reassurance in Alex’s answer should be focused on).
     

    dojibear

    Senior Member
    AE (US English)
    You could change subj/obj and say "That won't stop him."

    I want it to mean that it takes more in a relationship (in general) to be turned off for a man. It seems like it's a french expression and it doesn't exist in English, it's too bad.
    I think it is cultural.

    In the US, it seems like everyone exaggerates their imperfections (we all have them) and worries about them. But most of the time they are not a problem. So you might say

    "He'll notice the birthmark, but he'll notice everything else too!"

    In the US, we make a distinction between a person's physical body and the person (their personality, their thinking, their actions, their conversation). So in the US I might say:

    "Sophie, he loves you. He doesn't love your body, or some imaginary perfect body he thinks you have."
     

    Juju333

    Senior Member
    French
    In the US, some women say "All men are pigs!" Or were you thinking of a different expression? :)
    You say that in France too, sort of. But I wasn't talking about that saying, but the one that says "he won't stop at that", in french < there is a phrase > meaning the person won't be "discouraged"/"stopped" in what they want to achieve only because of "that".

    < Edited to remove French. Cagey, moderator >
     
    Last edited by a moderator:

    Hermione Golightly

    Senior Member
    British English
    I go with 'put him off'. If he's really keen and a decent sort, he won't be worried by physical imperfections.
    Physical appearance is considered to be the be-all and end-all on this side of the Atlantic too, especially by insecure young women. That has always been the case in fact. Unless I'm missing something, I can't see any 'cultural' differences.
    I can't say 'deal breaker' is a common BE term.
     

    Cagey

    post mod (English Only / Latin)
    English - US
    Thank you everybody

    Can I say "No, it takes more for him to be turned off/put off"?
    Yes, with a minor addition:
    "No, it takes more <than that> for him to be turned off/put off."
    (To me, 'turned off' refers to the immediate sexual response; 'put off' is more general, and could refer to an interest in an on-going relationship.)​
    You might also say, "It would take more than that...."
     

    kentix

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    "No, he won't care about that." It's not a set phrase, it's just the truth.

    I agree that "he won't be put off by that" is a good alternative.

    "He won't stop at that" makes no sense in English for that context.
     

    analeeh

    Senior Member
    English - UK
    Yes, with a minor addition:
    "No, it takes more <than that> for him to be turned off/put off."
    (To me, 'turned off' refers to the immediate sexual response; 'put off' is more general, and could refer to an interest in an on-going relationship.)​
    You might also say, "It would take more than that...."
    I would say 'it would take more than that to put him off' is more likely than 'for him to be put off'.
     
    Top