Apparently there are only 27 types of men, ranging from the:
Achilles, a charming but flawed sophisticate named after Homer's hero in the “Iliad” and illustrated in the book by former United States President Bill Clinton.
to the:
Murdoch, named after the Australian media tycoon Rupert, has self-belief and always looks towards the next big deal.
Bollocks to that crap. As far as I'm concerned, all men fit in to this taxonomy:
cute
non-cute
gay
straight
available
not available
interested
not interested
able and willing to commit
fuckwit
Of course 'cute' is a very loose term, covering looks, intelligence, sense of humour, mattressability, and all sorts of other attributes which conspire to make someone attractive.
This means that there are, in fact, 32 types of men – more than enough to fill a decent-sized book – but not all are equally likely, for example, a gay man may well be cute, and able and willing to commit, but he's not going to be interested in me unless I have some serious surgery.
Obviously I'm after a cute straight available interested guy who is able and willing to commit. I usually seem to end up with the fuckwits though.
Anyway, nuff of my love life, where's my six figure publishing deal?
non-cute/non-available/already committed male viewed this list posted by someone in the Zoe general discussion a week or so ago. I perused it closely and decided a) it was veddy British-Isles and b) not one of the 27 types described me or any of my male friends/acquaintances, possibly because of posit a).
Karl M
Yeah, this post was based on my response in Zoe to that post. I think the reason no one matches any of the 27 types of men is because the typecasting is just rubbish, although it's probably also not culturaly transferrable.
Comments on this entry are closed.