My point is that I can only go for women which I fancy. Once of a day, many years ago, I could 'do it with anyone', as much as my hand, but as i have aged i find that I 'see more', which affects things for me very much. Unfortunately for me, I like thin women, and most are now ovrweight, and this narrows things down very very much. As I said, 99% overweight, for my taste, but if it was 50% then that would be every other one eligible (50%), then 6 to 1 that are non-starters because they are just not right enough or have a dog or something, which calculates that I can only have a chance of clicking withone in 5 hundred, plus the deal breakers at 6 to 1), meaning, in all, (500 x 6) 3000.

If the ratio of thinner women was lower, say 20%, then I'd have 1 in 20, times 6, making a scoring ratio of one in 120 of women which pass my eyes, but because of the obesity pidemic this has reduced to 1 in 3000.

But, alas, they have all been stuffing themselves.

Ther is another aspect to all this. I can see why a person who had a known and particuler 'taste' would actively, because of the urge, put themselves in a position where this could be achieved. The perves, scout leaders, etc. Me? Well, maybe eastern Europe.

But do you know what you like? Do you find it easy to get what you like? Or do you not really care too much? What is your type? How easy do you find it to achieve that?

Sugarspin, I have done all that, been there, bought the t-shirt. The more you know yourself (not to be patronizing, but it naturally comes with time....I'm middle-aged), the more narrow it gets, the more sophisticated/selective you become as to what turns you on AND what turns you off. This becomes intense as you hone your taste, but the downside is that your ratio becomes narrower.

It's good you know what you want, But lets say through all the calculations and statistics, you meet this girl. The one in 567000 (or whatever the answer to the equation was) You date, then you realise you don't like her.

I get you know what you want and as kinda bad as I feel what I'm about to put is, Have you thought about getting someone you're a bit attracted to n just getting them to loose weight? Or just generally make them more attractive to you. Shitty thing to say but I feel that's what a lot of women do to men when they get in relationships after a while.

I've recently come out of the longest relationship of my life, I like the kind of body my ex had (she was a professional dancer with massive tits) But I'm not going to not have sex with other attractive women just because I have a type, my type might change, I may have only brain washed myself into that type because I was so into my ex. But I'm a little bit younger than you so I suppose you're more experienced of knowing what you want and wanting to get something that will last.

I have always been more of a quality over quantity person myself, But that doesn't mean I won't have fun.

I genuinely did laugh out loud with your suggestion of finding someone i like and then getting them to lose weight! If it is true that hell hath no fury like a woman spurned, then God help the bloke who asks a woman he like to lose weight.

The thing I wonder about is just how much different am I to other blokes. Not that I am bothered, but just interested. You see, I think that if you know what it is that you really like, then there is no going back. Nothing less will do because the sex is at a higher intensity, and the other stuff is just nothing, 'just going through the motions', because your eyes are not popping out of your head and your heart pounding, with you unable to tear your eyes away for a moment.

This changes a lot, it makes it much more difficult, much more.

I suppose i just don't understand other blokes. I can only think it is very very shallow, they have an interest where I would have none at all. And i wonder if i am different or is it just that they have only a score in mind and as their motivation.

Regarding a person's type, well I think that my type has always been hardwired into me from infancy or in the womb, but it took me a long time to listen to myself and realize that because the 'clues' of the attraction, the signals to my sexual interest were distant, weak and unfamiliar. They were not obvious, not in my face, not what other were into, and all this mis-direction added to the difficulty of listening to them 'distant and weak' signs I occasionally received, which came piecemeal.only the legs of one woman, then only the chin of another, etc. But i began to listen to my senses and look at the various attributes of a woman in individual parts, and build up a sort of fantasy woman who comprised of all the parts which did something for me. Then in looking more able for such a person i began to find that such a person embodying all those specifications had fantasy impact, and indeed was actually a type of woman. I could actually describe such a woman, what she would look like.

I don't know whether I have gone down a uncommon avenue or whether is is just a common resultant place I am in which is where it all leads.

That is an interesting observation of yourself. It may mean you want her back in some way, to get back what you had, but maybe it is more than that, that you are homing in on a type, on your type, finding your type.

I think this is an individual thing, so you have to ask what it is that YOU like about her, not what the wider world says you should like. You have to go your own way on this seeking journey of discovery.

Interesting that you find yourself doing that.

It's really bad you view everything through stats and logic. Where do you get this 99% of women are overweight? Bullshit. As for the other stuff where you add in stuff that would make them non starters like having a dog (LOL) at 6-1your just picking figures out and making them up. This 1/120 or 1/3000 if its true means basically your never going to meet anyone. Ever. You must see that yourself (unless this whole thread is just a piss take).

What if you met someone that had all the personality characteristics that you love - funny, attitude, outgoing - whatever, she had a pretty face but she was overweight. Or I dunno, say she had all the above but instead of overweight she had a flat chest and one of the things you love is big tits. Would that mean she's still a no?

This whole thing is a false dichotomy. It's completely possible to have sex with a bunch of people you find attractive. Even if your tastes are very specific, if you go out doing enough game, statistics win out. Can you have sex with more people if you're less fussy? Sure. That doesn't mean that you're either only attracted to one woman out of every 3000 or you're just fucking girls you don't like to try and get your number up.

So you've got very specific things you look for in women. Cool, whatever. The factors that are important to you are probably not important to others. Whether or not someone has a dog has not bearing on whether or not I'd have sexc with them. Therefore my tastes are both different and wider, and that's fine. But when you say stuff like:

you assume an air of haughty superiority, as though just because people don't share your rigidly specific tasters that they are somehow less refined in their tastes, or just ignoring their tastes entirely. They're just different. In fact the one picture of a girl you've put up on here no one else found attractive. Would you assume then that our tastes are superior? Or are they just different?

And another thing that seems odd to me. What's with this supposition that people automatically have one type that they gravitate towards at the expense of all others, that must become more and more specific over time? Why is that automatically assumed to be a thing, and a desirable thing at that? What the hell is wrong about enjoying a variety of women, and being attracted to women specifically for traits unique to them as opposed to some non existent and largely arbitrary ideal you've conjured up in your head?

Striving toward a constantly and ultimately arbitrarily refining subjective ideal of what you find attractive strikes me as leading to nothing but disappointment. As an ideal is something that can be approximated but never truly found, you'll never manage to find someone who ultimately and completely conforms to your ideal. If on the other hand you can embrace and find attractive the engaging unique aspects of women you come across on your way you can never be frustrated as you're embracing the external qualities instead of trying to shoehorn them into your ideal. That way you have more sex, better stories, less disappointment and a happier life.

Well, I am not taking the piss. I never ever do, because it ain't my style. I think it very low, and i don't like to try and fool people. I muck about sometimes for fun, but that is always obvious, but I don't get off on trying to get someone to believe something which is made up, etc.

Out of interest, taking the piss, I believe, derives from a time when urine was collected and transported to a place for use in industrial processing, a time when it was manual and hands on. Naturally if it was your job to collect all the urine and transport it then you would not be too proud of it, so when asked what you was transporting you would likely say something other than urine when you was actually taking the piss. They are interesting, where these names come from, as is NEWS, which was when information of goings on was regularly collected to a central point, and spread out from a central point, from and to all places North, East, West, and South.

Anyway, The calculations are correct to my figures, though keep in mind that I am not on about odds for every woman I chat to, but odds for a suitable woman in a certain amount of which there would be an eligible candidate.

You asked if it would still mean a 'no'. Well, yes it would, It all has to be right.

And they are out there. I cannot describe exactly, for sometimes a low fringe seems right, and then another time a high fringe seems right. The only thing I can thus do is to listen to......and this is the tricky bit to explain....to what has been called The Three Sisters. These are forces of nature, it could be said. I quote a de quincy essay on this matter:

' Do they talk, then? O, no! mighty phantoms like these disdain the infirmities of language. They may utter voices through the organs of man when they dwell in human hearts, but amongst themselves there is no voice nor sound; eternal silence reigns in their kingdoms. They spoke not, as they talked with Levana; they whispered not; they sang not; though oftentimes methought they might have sung, for I upon earth had heard their mysteries oftentimes deciphered by harp and timbrel, by dulcimer and organ. Like God, whose servants they are, they utter their pleasure, not by sounds that perish, or by words that go astray, but by signs in heaven, by changes on earth, by pulses in secret rivers, heraldries painted on darkness, and hieroglyphics written on the tablets of the brain. They wheeled in mazes; I spelled the steps. They telegraphed from afar; I read the signals. They conspired together; and on the mirrors of darkness my eye traced the plots. Theirs were the symbols; mine are the words'.

And as visual illustration i offer this: http://youtu.be/sYrWtRad8CY 'Messages in secret pulses in rivers' (the text above explains the idea).

It has taken me a while to understand this, as much as I can, but if you read carefully and think about it, that it is saying something, it makes good sense of something which is difficult to describe. It is giving explanation to what is there but indefinable, for instance, like someone who has star quality, the x factor as it is know, say where they have something but you can't explain what it is because it is beyond our ken and grasp, though we recognise it. And so it is with these women, they are soooo special, though it is difficult to say how for it is communicated '....by pulses in secret rivers, heraldries painted on darkness, and hieroglyphics written on the tablets of the brain. They wheeled in mazes; I spelled the steps. They telegraphed from afar;'.

I hope I am making sense. it is a strange thing why someone can be sooo special, can have such a magic and attraction with power to affect.

So your a perfectionist then? I can relate to that and being a perfectionist is really, really bad and not a good thing at all in my view.

Really, what difference does her fringe make? Admittedly I have a bit of a hair fetish but thats taking the mick.

The rest of your reply to me is just absolute gibberish. I can't decide if your a troll who's crying out with laughter on the other end of his computer at all of this for his own poor self amusement, or if you just have some pretty serious brain issues. I think its a lot closer to the former.

I'm not a troll. I have mental issues just as every human has, but I don't have mental problems. Give me time.

De Quincy and Hollefrank said it their way. This is another way it has been said. I am talking about how it is a woman can so much cast a spell over us by simply 'doing nothing'.

This makes me wanna cry sometimes: http://youtu.be/4y_m-CoUIRs