tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8326863927340093937.post3813467932784907640..comments2024-01-19T04:02:26.138-05:00Comments on Love Letters In Hell: Sexual FluidityAmandahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00040966100796641603noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8326863927340093937.post-48210269220032190102010-05-11T20:13:32.619-04:002010-05-11T20:13:32.619-04:00I, personally, have a broader range-- men that are...<i>I, personally, have a broader range-- men that are tall, intelligent, well read, funny, and a little arrogant. But my physical standards-- other than that they're of a similar height to me or taller-- have never been as firm. Hell, I don’t even stick to one ethnicity. One of my friends in college described me as not having a type one time. At first, I was a little offended, but after some reflection i decided that hey, that's a good thing! I'm more open to men who might be different but awesome. I've always been exceedingly picky about who I’ll actually be in a relationship to, but open to giving almost anyone a chance at a casual date. </i><br /><br />I think we're blog-world soul mates. Haha. <br /><br />But seriously, "tall, intelligent, well read, funny, and a little arrogant" perfectly describes dominant personality traits of the guys I've been involved with in my adult life, including my husband. I shortened it to "tall, smart, and a little mean," although I think "arrogant" works better here.<br /><br />But yeah. I have never had a "type" as far as looks were concerned. Big, ultra thin, white, Asian, clean-cut, scruffy... whatever. The only constant are the personality traits and intelligence (and considerable height as the one particularly desirable physical trait).<br /><br />By the way, I love your blog! Blogrolling you, unless you object.Aprilhttp://ethecofem.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8326863927340093937.post-82512946941035470322010-04-21T11:14:19.974-04:002010-04-21T11:14:19.974-04:00Amanda,
I'm not sure that is what Diamond mea...Amanda,<br /><br />I'm not sure that is what Diamond means by "other areas". I would argue that women have more fluidity in their attractions to people, but not to everything. The reality is that Western cultures allow women a more diverse definition of sexual attraction. It is more acceptable for a woman to be lesbian and especially bisexual than it is for a man to gay or bi. If a man has any male attraction, the label flies to the other end of the spectrum. He is gay. Current prescriptions of masculinity do not allow for the same diversity that femininity offers.<br /><br />Smaller "gender boxes" for men, if you will...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8326863927340093937.post-15217657991568602202010-04-19T01:21:46.975-04:002010-04-19T01:21:46.975-04:00teresting post. I am fortunate enough to have a nu...teresting post. I am fortunate enough to have a number of different types, all clean-shaven, light-skinned and fairly thin though. I really would have no preference at all in relation to hair colour, some hair is nice though if possible, although some men can carry off the bald/shaven look.<br /><br />This makes life much more fun and also allows more choice.<br /><br />Sometimes the fact that the hero in a film/tv programme is of a particular type may make that type attractive to women who might have overlooked it in the past, certainly this has been my experience.SDaedalushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12200162495362442702noreply@blogger.com