E-Squared Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 So I recounted a conversation I had more than a year ago with a good female friend of mine about how I said that I don't have a type. Now how it came about was that I hypothetically asked if she would ever consider me to date, and she said that she has a type and that I don't exactly fit that. That is fine, but I think I had told her that I am not sure if I even have a type. She said that I have to have one, but I said that I am usually open to whatever attracts me. I was even asked if I have a type by a friend of my cousin's before, and I said that I am not sure if I have one. Now I know that I have turnoffs, and there are some types of women that I am iffy about pursuing, but not exactly opposed to it. So is it possible not to have a type?
CarrieT Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 So is it possible not to have a type? Of course. My first husband was 6'6", 325 pounds, blond, balding and very frumpy. The guy after that was a cross-dresser who was a race car driver. Then I lived with a musician who was 5'8", only wore jeans and a t-shirt, and had a ponytail down to his but. The guy who brought me to this site was gangly, thin and very charismatic. I finally married a guy who has multiple degrees, speaks 11 languages, and wears business suits every day. Other than the fact that they are all genetically male, there is nothing similar to any of them... 1
Phoe Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 Yes, I have never had a type. Other than that they HAVE to be a male. I'm not fussed about hair/eyes/body type/style/etc. 1
sportygirl89 Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 I generally try to find guys who like the same things as me but I wouldn't call it a type. However, I'd never want t to date a guy at my gym.
Fair Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 I do have a 'type'. Definitely. It's not something I consciously think about, but when I find myself extremely attracted to someone he almost always fit's the bill at least up to 95%. There was one guy who at first I couldn't believe I was attracted to because he was quite a bit overweight. But then I realized that, weight aside, he had most of the characteristics I like... he carried himself with confidence, had an attractive face and was tall and broad shouldered, educated and intelligent. So he was still my 'type;... only with a little more weight added on.
almond Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 Of course it's possible! I have a few deal breakers, but I definitely do not have a "type." 1
No_Go Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 No "type", appearance-wise- absolutely. E.g. I'm not a visual person at all... Hardly recognize faces after seeing people a few times All just look like humans to me I still I have a "type" but it is more related to the energy that the person exerts - slowish laid-back vibes for me are passion killer. Btw people you date <> people that are your type in many cases. Also, in many cases "type" subconsciously morphs in something similar to the current partner. So I recounted a conversation I had more than a year ago with a good female friend of mine about how I said that I don't have a type. Now how it came about was that I hypothetically asked if she would ever consider me to date, and she said that she has a type and that I don't exactly fit that. That is fine, but I think I had told her that I am not sure if I even have a type. She said that I have to have one, but I said that I am usually open to whatever attracts me. I was even asked if I have a type by a friend of my cousin's before, and I said that I am not sure if I have one. Now I know that I have turnoffs, and there are some types of women that I am iffy about pursuing, but not exactly opposed to it. So is it possible not to have a type?
newmoon Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 most people who responded already are saying they don't have a visual type, but i bet if they re-answered they'd know that we all have a type. the people you date might not all look the same, but they probably share similar character traits. i think in terms of character we all have a type and seek it out, but looks can vary, and some people will always go for a certain look and others won't. but either way the people we pick will have something in common. imo.
normal person Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 It's all semantics. Your "type" = who you're attracted to. Whether or not you can qualify it somehow, there are things people are attracted to in some but not in others. For some people it's a broad of a range and more ambiguous, for others the range is narrow and more easily defined. 1
SammySammy Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 If you were to look at my exes visually, you would probably say I don't have a type. A wide variety of backgrounds, races, cultures, etc. However, I often feel that I've dated the same woman over and over again. Despite their differences, they were (are) very close to the same when it comes to temperament, aspirations, attitude, and sophistication. There's a combination of calm, classy exterior and fiery interior that triggers my interest every time.
Author E-Squared Posted October 27, 2015 Author Posted October 27, 2015 most people who responded already are saying they don't have a visual type, but i bet if they re-answered they'd know that we all have a type. the people you date might not all look the same, but they probably share similar character traits. i think in terms of character we all have a type and seek it out, but looks can vary, and some people will always go for a certain look and others won't. but either way the people we pick will have something in common. imo. Perhaps, though in a lot of cases I find myself attracted to more down-to-earth types than anything, but that is mostly how they present themselves. On one hand, I could say that I would pursue a nerdy type, but I am not opposed to those who aren't exactly nerdy. It really depends, but I did say that I have types who I would be iffy to go for, and I mean personality-wise.
Els Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 I don't really have a physical type, but I definitely have a personality/character type and I make no bones about that. 1
JustGettingBy Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 I don't really have a physical type, but I definitely have a personality/character type and I make no bones about that. I'm the same way. I think I have more personality deal-breakers than physical ones. 1
PrettyEmily77 Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 I have a type - to me it means I know what I want in a man, although I haven't always got it right. Pre BF, I thought I had a physical type and my exes kind of look the same (dark hair, blue/green eyes, slim build ) - my BF is almost completely the opposite to that but the thing they all have in common is that they are physically attractive to me, but also in general - I'm very visual and need to be attracted straight away - a guy's looks can never grow on me / can't be compensated with chararcter traits. I'm also generally attracted to ambitious, loyal and sociable guys - the degree of chemistry / connection / other (non) compatible traits are what set them apart. I think it helps to have a type, or at least an idea of what attracts you to someone, if only to weed out quickly those you aren't compatible with or attracted to, IMO.
salparadise Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 In terms of looks and physical features, I'm mostly omnivorous. I give extra credit for blonde hair, blue eyes, smooth skin, symmetrical features, height-weight proportionate, good teeth, nice round ass and small to medium sized shapely breasts, between 5 and 6 feet tall. If she happens to be brunette with big brown eyes... as the good old boys in the shop used to say, "you know me- I don't cull nothin." When it comes to personality, that's different. They gotta have highly functional synapses or I'm probably not be interested no matter how symmetrical they may be. And what I've come to accept over the past couple of years is, intuitive-feeling is what rings my bell... and the more intuitive the better. The feeling part needs some balance with the cognitive/thinking side too, but I am a "T" (used to be at least) and it just works better to have someone who is complementary on that axis. Lifestyle, activities... non-smoker, drinks but not excessively, spiritual or agnostic (no more religious chicks), spontaneous and moderately adventurous. Sexuality... yes, sex-positive, no hangups or bull$hit, willing to push the edges some, orgasmic and appreciative of a guy with oral predilections. Mental health... I swear to God that I am never, ever falling for another cluster B type again even if it means being lonely and celibate. Former codependents who were attached to c-Bs and got over it actually make nice partners if they've done their homework.
Miss Peach Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 Of course it's possible! I have a few deal breakers, but I definitely do not have a "type." Same here. I have a list of what I want but I am open to the package it comes in. My friends always scratch their heads at the guys I date because there is no pattern.
ltjg45 Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Physical type? No, not really other than they have to look like they are smaller than me in weight. Personality type? Definitely. I got quite a few deal breakers in that category that I wouldn't tolerate.
MissBee Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Type to me doesn't mean everyone you date is a carbon copy of each other physically, interest wise etc (although for some people their type is exactly this). I think many people have a "type" even if they don't know it and sometimes it's about a particular kind of personality or relationship style. The people may look nothing like each other neither will they have the same hobbies, job, personality necessarily, but sometimes there is a single thread that they all have in common. For me for example, my type was emotionally unavailable. never failed. I never went out willingly thinking I was choosing it but I was and although these guys were all different on paper and physically, they were "the same type" in terms of being emotionally unavailable. Nowadays, I'll say that I don't have a physical type necessarily, although there are some looks I'm more attracted to than others, but definitely I think personality wise I tend to go for a particular type.
Myragal Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 We all have a type...we choose via deductive logic Yes, I have a type. Nobody more than a couple years younger or a decade older. Nobody obese. No tattoos of names of former girlfriends on their forehead. Nobody who smokes, does drugs. No motorcycles. No married men. Nobody looking for a casual fling, Etc. I doubt if many of us are open to everyone. Our openness is within a range of potential partners. I don't care about height. Don't care about hair/ no hair. Don't care about race
No Limit Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I thought I didn't have a type. Then I talked a little with a really really bright man. Intelligence is harder to find though than certain physical characteristics.
carhill Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 So is it possible not to have a type? Well, historically, my type for sexual/romantic relations has been female. Absent that, none that I can discern, perhaps aligning with focus on individuality.
burnt Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 So is it possible not to have a type? I hate making generalizations, but I do believe that we mostly do have a type. But it's partly subconscious. For example, for many woman, their early childhood interactions with their father (or lack thereof) determines the type of man they naturally feel attracted to. (if she was abused or lacked healthy affection from the father, without realizing, she later feels drawn to older male, and so sadly often the abusive types ironically). Much of the times we don't realize what our own minds are doing--we just like to think we are doing the 'choosing'.
thefooloftheyear Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I think, in general, the better looking/more desirable are more likely to have definitive "types"....Stands to reason, as they have more options and can be more discerning... TFY
carhill Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I may have misunderstood the OP's question. I interpreted it as having a type one is attracted to, versus a type one has successful relationships with. I can certainly see traction for a more socially powerful person having successful relationships with a particular type which they choose to have relationships with, should they be uniquely attracted to that type, versus someone with less social power. Essentially, the difference between coveting and owning the relationship. My 'type' opinion referred to the coveting/attraction part, going way back to early teenage years before established social power structures became evident and then moving forward through time accepting those power structures and on to relationships and marriage. I certainly have met a lot of men who've expressed a 'type', generally physical. I simply didn't share their perspective. Outlier? IDK.
GoodOnPaper Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 I think, in general, the better looking/more desirable are more likely to have definitive "types"....Stands to reason, as they have more options and can be more discerning... Definitely. But even with options aside, I'm always surprised at how type-conscious, with the over-analysis and rigidity to go with it, so many people on LS are. Maybe it's an OLD effect? I've always just thought of a "type" as being a set of qualities that will draw my initial attention a little more quickly -- fair complexion with dark or red hair, soft curves, naturally getting my sense of humor. But all of this could go out the window after getting to know someone.
Recommended Posts