So, I'm wondering today;
If you prefer a certain type of girl, does that alone make her your 'type'?
Does having a 'type' mean you only see only girls who fit it?
If you're attracted, in varying degrees, to many different types of girls, does that mean you, in fact, do not have a 'type'?
Can you simply get used to a 'type', and begin to think it's your type?
Could you then make yourself look outside that 'type' for love?
Should you?
So confused.
If you prefer a certain type of girl, does that alone make her your 'type'?
Does having a 'type' mean you only see only girls who fit it?
If you're attracted, in varying degrees, to many different types of girls, does that mean you, in fact, do not have a 'type'?
Can you simply get used to a 'type', and begin to think it's your type?
Could you then make yourself look outside that 'type' for love?
Should you?
So confused.
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
Perhaps the word you would be better off with is "preference" rather than "type".
For example, I prefer smart girls. But looking at my history of girlfriends, it can be seen that I don't always stick to my preferences. I prefer brunettes, but looking at a couple of the girls I've dated recently it's evident that I can be equally happy with blondes[1].
Is this the sort of thing you're getting at?
Single ... easy..?
Oh ... oh, that's rich. I hurt everyone when I'm single, apparently, and myelf, especially. Thus is the curse of moi.
Anyhoo, interesting thoughts. I like Cromnac's idea that we have 'tastes.'