Your type of mate – random, or chosen ???

I know that everybody wants to believe that they have a random "type", conceived almost entirely between their own ears and with little input from anywhere else in society – but I’m guessing that is far from true. Instead I think most who evolve to have (or be seen as having) a certain "type" (of ideal/desired/repeated mate) do so as the result of various external psychological influences.

Usually one’s "type" is the result of some long-ago impact by a person of (the desired) gender making some sort of prominent impression at what was probably a random point in time. Eventually, for most people, introduction to the actual mating game (or at the very least, the "I don’t mate, so I view a lot of porn" game) brings them to a place similar to that at which the aforementioned other John was at when seeming to (present) no idea of just what selection criteria he should use.

Because the realm of possibility is so vast, one tends to lean toward what they know, and/or what has served them well in the past (whether it be for long-term mates, or with hookers). Given recent alterations in the world’s oldest profession, where it has moved indoors in large part, there is no longer the hard-sell by scantily clad temptresses who could so often be leaning into your open car window. In such scenarios, the big-bosomed lady with the Dutch accent  who was there within arm’s reach might easily have sufficed as your "type" for the next hour or two. These days, a guy tends to plan his ‘dates’ in advance, and he is given much more criteria by which to select one of the candidates readily available on the internet. On the downside, with this, for some, is that they suddenly have to do some selecting – some picking and choosing. Before, it was perhaps sponaneity and the little head thinking for the big head which caused a quick decision.

Not only that, but as porn has evolved as well, suddenly anybody can sift through huge libraries of porn while isolating specific elements as he narrows the random playing field to what he truly wishes to view.

The realm of human appearances out there is so considerable that it truly takes a moment of pure randomness at some point to establish a person’s "type", even if that "type" is then repeated time and again by that individual enough to give others the impression it was born into him. I suggest it probably wasn’t born into him.

Instead I’m guessing that a combination of early impressions or later true randomness in the mating process might inspire individuals of either sex to keep repeatedly making advances toward certain "types" of potential mates or sex partners.

Whether it be a wistful young girl of perhaps 7, imaging her future life with husband, kids and a dog as she looks out the window at the man mowing the lawn across the street, or a boy of about 16 awkwardly paired with his first girlfriend – one whose continued and sincere interest in him is intoxicating – the initial impressions caused by that individual are more long-lasting than most tend to understand.

Unfortunately it works another way too… in that young persons physically victimized by a random-seeming perpetrator from the past later know an extremely high attraction TO just that physical "type" of person. If your father was an alcoholic, and you didn’t land the gene for addiction yourself but instead spent many years as his ‘caretaker’, then you are extremely likely to be drawn to romantic scenarios wherein you can play ‘caretaker’ to an alcoholic mate. Indeed this same reverse-logic ("illogic"?) applies to people who have been the victims of physical or sexual violence in their formative years.

What that does, for better or for worse, is not leave one running on empty when he/she thinks he/she is supposed to have ideas and criteria by which to sort future romantic prospects. Sometimes we are so relieved to have some idea of how to go about selecting mates or people to admire, that we just keep relying on the old standby’s out of habit and for not having to come up with something new.

Some of the details are astounding where it concerns various people whose new romantic partners look incredibly like their former mates. Maybe it isn’t as much because of true preferences as it is for more simple reasons such as a human will to keep repeating that which they already know, or which has already been established.

When I’m looking at either porn on the web or potential working girls to meet I just don’t have any particulars in that way. I find myself constantly sifting through scores of online photos and drawn mainly to those whose features land (what I think is) slightly to either side of (the vast realm of) "average". When I see a blond with the giant breasts so stereotypical of what women perceive men to find ideal, I don’t then spend the rest of the time in search of blonds with giant breasts.

There are just so many awesome and unique features about the human appearance that (individual women – usually) are selling themselves short in not observing that they too have some qualifying elements of uniqueness that men find quite desirable. Those uniquenesses are both of the sorts visible every day as well as in areas almost always covered by a bikini. It stands to reason that the closer men get to women (and what’s beneath a bikini), the more prominent those wonderfully unique attributes tend to be. Alas, that too, could be an illusion caused moreso by such appetizing elements being so often covered up than by their seeming and being extra unique.

All of this makes me want to reiterate that were it not for the vast variety of appearances all around us, it would be far more difficult to recognize the wonderful uniqueness to any individual lover. Were it not for porn and strip clubs and the like, a man of, say, 37, might be expected to have viewed the naughty bits of perhaps 3 to 8 women total before then wanting to see just as much uniqueness to your naughty bits as he does today, after a lifetime of porn in various doses.

As for me, I really don’t find myself at all drawn or restricted to "types". Indeed there are a few elements of femininity that draw my attention more quickly than do others, but what if it is because they are more unique to the rest, rather than because I’m predestined to always revert to a certain "type"?

I sort of wonder whether people who are with mates who qualify as their "type" (with fairly narrow parameters) have mates who are less content on the grand scale than are those whose mates were or seem to have been drawn fully randomly from the sea of humanity?

Humans (especially males) are a lot less in-charge of what they like in a mate than anybody likes to believe. The idea for this entry came to me upon reading of another "John" innocently asking for suggestions as to which working girl others might suggest for him, as he is new to the biz and its

surrounds.

The man was getting nothing in the way of answers even though many had responded and the reason for that lies in the ancient psychological forces at work. That is to say that none of the others thought themselves able to conceive of his "type" from scratch, and without the slightest bit of input from him.

Upon reading what he was asking, my mind flashed to the small handful of young women on my own list of present-day interests. Yet I couldn’t be inspired to list that small group for him when I had no cause to believe that he should have reason to see or anticipate them as I do. Thus it was imperative that he should narrow the playing field in the way of citing physical and/or personality traits of primary interest to him before returning to the masses with an appeal for suggestions.