?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Scheherazade in Blue Jeans
freelance alchemist
On types 
28th-Jul-2010 10:56 am
Be Mine
(At this point I am just struggling to keep myself awake til I can go home. There was a casual glutening Monday night and it has been kicking my ass. Please excuse lapses into illogic.)

Last night at Diesel, the crush meme was a subject of conversation, with one person expressing surprise that more than one person was crushing on both them and another person very unlike them. (I hope that makes sense.)

This led to a discussion of types, which I bring here. My angle, personally. Your angle is also welcome, of course.

I don't find that I have a physical type. I have noted that more often than not, I prefer people with dark hair over people with fair hair, but there are many exceptions. That's about it, though. I've dated guys ranging in height from 5'2" to 6'4". (I have not kept track of girlfriends' height, but I think they average about 5'2" to 5'....8", maybe?) I have dated very skinny people, I have dated people who would be considered heavyset. I've dated people at every level of masculine/feminine gender presentation.

So what's my type?

My type is smart.

My type is smart, funny, intellectually curious. My type defaults to doing the right thing and giving a shit about the world around them. My type is geeky - I talk in loops of SF and comic book references, and if you speak my language, that gives us a head start! My type can hold their own in a conversation with me. My type doesn't take any shit from me and isn't afraid to disagree with me.

As far as preferences go, though none of this is iron-clad - I prefer to date people who are already in good solid primary relationships. I make a kickass secondary, but I know I don't have the bandwidth to be a kickass primary to anyone but Adam these days, so I'm not a good match for anyone who wants someone to be the center of their universe. I like it when you have a great partner and you're stable. I like the kinky funtimes, but they're not necessary.

And my brain is wandering, so I'll pick back up on this later.
Comments 
(Deleted comment)
28th-Jul-2010 03:09 pm (UTC)
I was recently reminded that I decided a few years ago my type seemed to be "favorite color green, current or ex-smoker, studied computer science or English" plus a couple of other non-physical attributes I don't remember right now. (I'm not sure it's still true, but I was amused.)
28th-Jul-2010 03:20 pm (UTC)
Have you ever dated anyone that weighed less and/or was shorter than you are? I realize that's a small percentage of the population, but I'm curious.
28th-Jul-2010 03:27 pm (UTC)
No one shorter, but I'm 4'11", so there are very few people shorter than me; I've only met two, and at least one was hetero and there wasn't a zingy attraction with either.

Weighed less... maybe? I've been up to 155 (I'm 118 now), but I don't know how much my last female ex weighed at any given time, so I'm not sure. Heck, lightcastle may have weighed less than me at one point, I'm not sure.
28th-Jul-2010 03:21 pm (UTC) - Type...
or more accurately, characteristics.

Smart, funny, passionate about something - could be geekery of a sort that meshes with mine, could be something that doesn't really interest me, though the smart and funny would then have to compensate. Appreciates music in some form, bonus for similar tastes, bonus for liking to sing, bonus for singing well. All of that makes up a friend; Relationshipping also has to have chemistry, which might appear instantly or grow over time given the above characteristics.

I was going to say something about not fitting into the societal norm, but given my preferred levels of smart and funny, the right combination would automatically throw the person out of the norm, anyway, so it becomes redundant to say.
28th-Jul-2010 03:25 pm (UTC)
When I think about "my type(s)", I never seem to think about smart -- I think that's just assumed, because I just don't like not-smart people. I do think about geek factor, and whether someone has a sufficient geek factor of a geekly slant that intersects mine significantly.

I do seem to have mostly gotten involved with substantially-bodied women who are shorter than me. I... can't think of a woman I've been involved with who was taller than me, and I've never been seriously involved with a thin woman (I have an irrational fear that I'd break them, which is total crap, of course, but there are just things one can't argue with). I've also never been involved with any woman who's older than me...

Huh. Guess I have a ton of mostly-unexplored insecurities going on there. Interesting. (Though maybe I'm improving a bit? I've recently discovered that I seem to have developed a very mild crush on a woman who is just about my height and 8-10 years older than me...)
28th-Jul-2010 03:29 pm (UTC)
My concept of 'type' is very complicated in that it is neither easily definable nor is it completely nebulous.

Like my appreciation of music, my appreciation of people I find attractive lies both in the way that they fit a particular 'type' AND the way they stand out from it.
28th-Jul-2010 03:37 pm (UTC)
Smart, funny, and intellectually curious...I'm with you on that. My "type" has physical aspects as well, though I can't easily narrow them down; my taste isn't as far-ranging as yours by a long shot, but (within the limitations of my orientation) there still seems to be a fair bit of variability.
28th-Jul-2010 04:07 pm (UTC)
I was thinking about crushes recently, particularly on non-romantic crushes, which seem to be completely lost to our culture as a thing-to-discuss, but I get lots of friend crushes - people who I think are awesome and want to hang out with but can't and even sometimes get shy around even though I don't have any (conscious) romantic inclinations toward them (y'know, beyond the fact that all attachment comes out of the limbic system and is therefore sexual down there at the bottom*). I really wish the non-romantic aspect of crush would return to parlance, because I think it would make for lots of good conversation.
28th-Jul-2010 04:08 pm (UTC)
*That's what she said.
(Deleted comment)
28th-Jul-2010 04:17 pm (UTC)
Physically, for me, it's long, dark hair, big, dark eyes, and *curves*. I like women that look like women, not preadolescent boys with unripe plums in their shirt.

But if they aren't *smart*, then I'm not at all interested in anything beyond looking at 'em. :)
28th-Jul-2010 05:12 pm (UTC)
I know you weren't asking for this, and I think I know what you meant, but this just really bugged me:

I like women that look like women, not preadolescent boys with unripe plums in their shirt.

Not all women are curvy, or boob-y, or hippy -- there are women who naturally have the figures of preadolescent boys, and it doesn't make them any less woman. And talking like this, like curvy is the only way to be a woman, implies that there's something wrong with those bodies.

And to turn this back to the topic of the post, I don't really have a physical type. I don't even really have a mental type: my husband is obviously intellectually stimulating to me, but I've been involved with people who are dumb-but-sweet and cherished that time, too. I'm not entirely sure what sparks me to get interested in someone, other than them being interested in me. I might be able to say things that make me NOT interested, but the only thing my partners all seem to have in common is me.
28th-Jul-2010 04:37 pm (UTC)
It's never been a conscious preference, but all except one or two of my boyfriends have had blue or green eyes. (The girlfriend sample size isn't large enough to see if it's true there, as well.)

In terms of personality-ish stuff, I am attracted to people who are *interesting*. This doesn't usually end well, since "interesting" often means "creates drama" or "pathological liar" or "has been too busy living an interesting life to develop necessary life & relationship skills" or "is too busy to really maintain a friendship/relationship", or some combination thereof. (I've been trending away from the former two and towards the latter two, but it's still all iterations of the same thing.)

28th-Jul-2010 05:09 pm (UTC)
I have a requirement of smart for everyone, and strong trending to creative. I date artists, writers, musicians. Makers. People who are creation to my destruction, mostly -- they make the gear and I field-test the hell out of it.

For women, I don't seem to have a physical type. For men, they're usually tall with dark hair. More often than not, green eyes. (Something like 80%, and it's like 3% of the population?) I sometimes worry that this is narcissistic of me, since that's what I look like... even though I have to dye my hair to get it.
28th-Jul-2010 09:13 pm (UTC)
Waitwait, three percent? Oh, wow, I have got to stop writing green-eyed characters. *blush*
28th-Jul-2010 05:35 pm (UTC)
For me, there's two types of "type."

There are the guys I take one look at and go "guh, pretty." They tend to be significantly taller than me, have long dark hair, and be in the middle range for weight.

There are also the guys who I start talking to and find I don't ever want to stop. We have interests in common, and our opinions overlap but don't match perfectly. We laugh at similar things and enjoy similar things. Usually, the better I get to know one of these guys the more attractive I find him, no matter where he falls in relation to the "guh, pretty" of the first type.
28th-Jul-2010 06:04 pm (UTC)
I tend to be attracted to smart, confident, and geeky folks.

I am very unattracted to arrogant, condescending, and pessimistic folks.

Naturally, it's much more complicated than that, but that's a pretty good start. Oh, and glasses good, smoking bad.
28th-Jul-2010 06:11 pm (UTC)
Glasses VERY good. Agreed.
28th-Jul-2010 06:12 pm (UTC)
You make a wonderful sister because of ALL of what you are, including smarts, creativity and your kick-ass attitude. Plus the pretty.

I'm secondary to everyone.

Edited at 2010-07-28 06:12 pm (UTC)
(Deleted comment)
28th-Jul-2010 06:23 pm (UTC)
I don't think the point of a type is to account for everyone I've dated/been really attracted to. I'm open to lots of different people, but I've still got a type; there's a certain set of features on a woman that will turn my head and make my heart really race instantaneously.

I didn't quite want to admit it either until ojouchan forced me to by constantly teasing me about it. And she's not even really that type (which is why she teases me so hard).

So let's put it another way: I'm a member of an intelligence agency, and it's my job to pick an operative with the highest probability of getting your attention and getting you into a relationship quickly. I can give them whatever cover they need, so mental and social traits aren't important. What person do I choose? And, possibly relatedly, how do I dress them?

(My type, as identified by Ojou: female, short, busty, pale skin, long "mousy" hair, casual clothes, glasses a plus.)
28th-Jul-2010 06:25 pm (UTC)
I'm a weird kid. If it's men? They've either got to be significantly taller than me and BUILT (I'm 5'7", dude needs to be 6'3"ish) or else kinda slender and girly. *laugh* The in-between dudes and I don't tend to intersect. I'm too tall, too aggressive and kinda fat. XD We have 'who's in charge?' problems at that point.

Women? I love women. XD I don't really have a type. Other than what previous commenters have said. I just do not deal well with stupid AT ALL so that's a no-go. I'm an artist, I tend to play well with other creators or people who love art. Or else computer nerds. 'Average folk', people who watch reality television, drink a lot of beer and don't read? I can't do. We bore one-another.
28th-Jul-2010 09:15 pm (UTC)
Oddly enough, I'm the same way about women -- far less picky than I am about men!
28th-Jul-2010 06:29 pm (UTC) - Totally unrelated...but sort of is...
In that it was part of the conversation last night.

Cinderella of Boston shoes:

http://www.cinderellaofboston.com/

Their standard pricing is not fantastic, but they do have some awesome sales...
28th-Jul-2010 07:04 pm (UTC)
I have several types. Unfortunately, one of them seems to be "fictional." *g*
28th-Jul-2010 07:36 pm (UTC)
I had never really noticed I had a "type" until A. (my wife) pointed it out to me. My type, where women are concerned, is short brunettes who are smart and fall somewhere between quirky and mentally ill on the sanity spectrum. My type for men is more vaguely defined (it's sort of an "I know it when I see it sort of thing"), but I tend to like muscular, football/hockey types.

A. summed it up most succinctly by defining it in terms of Firefly characters: I'm a Simon (much as I might wish I was a Jayne), and my types are River (minus the whole incest thing) and Jayne.

ETA: Not to say, of course, that my tastes are strictly bound by these types, but this is what will catch my attention in a crowd.

Edited at 2010-07-28 07:47 pm (UTC)
(Deleted comment)
28th-Jul-2010 09:27 pm (UTC) - I may be too picky. I do feel bad, yes.
It's weird, because when it comes to women, I'm really not all that picky ("smart" just about covers it, as well as "childfree or parenting something that won't think of me as Mummy", "smells nice", and "poly or poly-friendly"). But men?

Oh, boy.

Over thirty-five*, slight preference for tall shortish-haired brunets**. Same basic requirements as for women. I like 'em on the mellow but assertive-to-dominant side; doormats need not apply. Had enough of them. Bonuses include metrosexual, or at least can dress self attractively, even on a budget; broad tastes in music; more liberal than not (otherwise we will argue. Often), and oh, would I love to be someone's primary. Not that I love my Sky any less! It's just that I want a partner I get to see more than once a week for four to eleven hours at a time.

* I am twenty-four, so this is no longer as outrageous a request as it was, say, when I was eighteen and finally legal, but I prefer them between forty and fifty. There's just something about that age range.

**See icon for example of physical yum, or just rent the latest Star Trek (because Pike and McCoy? YES.)
28th-Jul-2010 10:46 pm (UTC)
My physical type, in terms of boys, tends to be very "boyish". The kind of guy that may be muscular but you'd never really be able to tell unless they were actively showing it off; big eyes and long lashes; a definite preference for curly or wavy hair. No facial hair (and very often with a very difficult time growing any in the first place, with an exception). So... yeah. Boyish. Height isn't really an issue, though I've never dated anyone more than ~1 inch shorter than me.

Preference towards bisexual or otherwise queer men, although my primary is not. Kinky is not necessary but really preferred.

In women, the wavy hair makes its return! And in spades. I love women with hair that is long and wavy or curly, especially if it is red or blonde (but really it can be any color; I just love it). I honestly kind of wonder if this has to do with waaaaay overidentifying with Sailor Uranus when I was coming into puberty/my interest in girls. ;)

That said, my interest also tends to come more from shared interests: are they geeky (in the RPG and video game sort of way)? Do they enjoy talking about sex? Are they creative in some way? Do they have a terrible, punny sense of humor? These are usually good indicators of interest, male or female (or anything in between, or totally outside).
28th-Jul-2010 10:47 pm (UTC)
Anything = any identification, that is. I realized after I hit post that the wording was off.
28th-Jul-2010 11:25 pm (UTC)
I posted about this not too terribly long ago but more in a, "it feels like it is now 'wrong' to have a type" as per some crap I have seen and gotten. I do have a type, but it isn't this set in stone thing. But if you stick me in a room with my type, almost my type, and not my type I will go talk to the "my type" first and if they turn out to not be compatible, I will work my way around. However, the physical type is only the very first tiny spark of interest and not at all the primary motivation. Intelligence and sarcasm are a must.
28th-Jul-2010 11:30 pm (UTC)
I always used to say I have a far more obvious mental type than a physical type. (I have a set of physical types, but not a clear dominant one.) Also, the mental type will re-set my physical one. After crushing on someone with a new physical type for me, I find I have slotted that physical type into the "of course I think that's hot" box.
(Deleted comment)
29th-Jul-2010 12:56 am (UTC)
My type tends to be guys who are average to short, with dark hair (often curly), usually weedy, intelligent, and musical. Nothing gets me interested in a guy as quickly as him being able to sing or play an instrument. Also, I have a habit for falling for guys I'm already friends with.

Of course, my current boyfriend has light brown-blonde hair, is taller than most I've liked (though still average), and not really musical at all. Plus, he works in finance. o_O So I guess type can't really explain everything.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
This page was loaded Sep 20th 2017, 9:58 pm GMT.