Friday, 18 May 2012

What's your type?

OK, I know I should be blogging about my holiday, but as always there's other more pressing things I want to talk about.

Maybe I am slightly off the wall, or not on the same wavelength as the rest of the planet but there are certain phrases that I hear oft repeated that I just don't get at all.

I was watching the telly the other day and some character asked another if he fancied some "bird" (his word, not mine) and the character said "Nah, she's not my type".

Now I have never understood this phrase, but as I understand it, some (if not most) men and women have a preference for certain attributes in the opposite sex, other well known phrases such as "Gentleman prefer blondes", spring to mind.

There are two types of occasions on which this "not my type" expression has cropped up in my life. Either in conversation about other people (when invariably the phrase has been uttered by the person I am in conversation with) or when it has been said directly to me, as in the following exchange:

Me: "Can I go out with you?"
Female: "No"
Me: "Why not?"
Female: "Because you're not my type".

In my younger days the "No" was pretty much a given, but the last line could vary, other common reasons included "I'm not looking for a relationship right now" or "You're too good a friend". Which are both bollocks. Why people don't just be honest I don't know. Well not brutally honest. "I don't fancy you" would suffice, I'm well aware of my physical shortcomings, don't need them pointed out.

But they all boil down to the same thing, and quite honestly I find people who do say "she's not my type" or "you are not my type" quite shallow really.

But it seems plenty do have a type. They like blondes, or they like a bit of rough or they like younger men, or sporty types. Why do I think it is shallow? Because it suggests they choose their partners solely on their physical attributes.

I am pretty sure I do not have a type. I have thought back about my past girlfriends and I can honestly say they are all different shapes, sizes, ages, different clothes, careers etc etc etc. You see for me it is all about the person. Now I'm not so blind as to see that there has to be some degree of physical attraction between two people for an initial spark to be lit, but to dismiss whole sections of the population because they don't fit the mould seems odd to me.

Maybe what I said before might make you think I am not too choosy - in fact I am incredibly choosy. Most of the people I have built intimate relationships have been based on a mutual love and trust I found with them - a kind of connection that I cannot really explain but they understood and felt it too - having similar values to my own.

Is type really that important? Let's use an example - this is for a bloke, but just reverse the sexes if you are female. Let's say you believe you have a type, and your type is slim blondes. Now you have two women standing in front of you and you can go out with either of them.

A) completely fits the mould of your type, blonde, beautiful, with a model's physique, for want of a better expression "she floats your boat". Yet you know for a fact from this woman's reputation that she is a scheming, evil bitch who has broken countless hearts and treated her partners like shite.

B) Is a brunette, pretty, but slightly chubby, not really your type but has a nice smile, and you know from talking to her that you get on really well, and enjoy her company.

Which one would you go for?

I of course would say B) but I suppose it all depends on where you are in your life. I am sure there are plenty of 20 year olds who would have a bit of fun with the Type A)'s first thinking that there's plenty of time for B) but even so - those relationships with the B)'s are ultimately and infinitely far more rewarding. And I don't just mean sexually - there are many people I have met who fall into category B) whom I have never developed a sexual relationship with - but have built amazing friendships with.

That's enough on that subject. This next shorter part will only be understood by people who like eating steak and watching horse racing, so probably not many of you.

It struck me the other day, that the classifications used to determine the "going" in horse racing work in exactly the same way that the classifications used to determine how you like your steak cooked. As follows:

Going - Steak Equivalent

Hard - Burnt
Firm - Well Done
Good to Firm - Medium to Well Done
Good - Medium
Good To Soft - Medium Rare
Soft - Rare
Heavy - Blue

Now I like my steak cooked all different ways, so as an experiment I have decided to let the state of the underfoot conditions at the day's principal meeting define how I will have my steak cooked. So I imagine they would have been quite on the rare side over the last few months what with all the rain, but now things are drying up I may be cooking them a little longer.

The going at Newmarket is Good To Soft!


Why am I doing this - well I like to be different to other people and it's just one the mad sort of ideas I come up with from time to time that make me the individual I am. 60 million people in the UK, and I'm fairly confident I will be the only one ever to determine how to cook their steak by the state of the day's going.

It's one of the reasons I like being me.

Holiday updates and piccies next time I promise.

If you have enjoyed reading this blog, please take a look at my books on Amazon (Paperback & Kindle), where you can read lots more of the same! Click here.

Jason xx

No comments:

Post a Comment