Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All three are beeyoutiful. I had never heard of Colbie Caillat until recently - just happened to be in a gym and one of her videos was on.I had to get off the damn treadmill because she was that stunning.
The attributes and ATTITUDES of earthiness usually go together. It's crazy. People tend to be more packaged than eclectic, it seems. Probably the only attribute I could stomach is the dietary one, if there was a valid reason for it, and I could stick to consuming poultry/meat/fish, which I'm nuts about.
There's nothing wrong with camping or hiking, which EVERYONE does every now and then, without being fanatical about it and being ridiculously accessorized and obsessed with it. It's when they begin to look like they should work at REI or LL Bean takes it becomes a turn-off.
This just sounds strange to me. Many of us spend our days inside at work. Then we spend time inside during the commute (car or train), then we spend our sleeping hours inside. During the winter (at least where I am) we spend time inside at the gym. And you're concerned about that being outside can become fanatical? And then you're also concerned about what these people are wearing?
Going to the park, riding a bike, hiking, camping with regularity is actually normal for some people. As well as abstaining from crap food (fast food, sugar) and preferring fruits, veggies, fish, etc. It might not be for you, but assigning it as fanatical is a bit over the top.
I'm confused - what does a person's educational level have to do with your thread?
It seems that the main thing with you is that you don't like liberals - so whether they are earthy, hippy-dippy, or just simply more liberally minded - you probably wouldn't like them. That seems to be more to the point than simply being earthy.
No. It's that it tends to be "packaged" and seems to pick up a different appellation over the decades.
"hippy" in the 60s and 70s
"granola" in the 80s and 90s
"natural" in the New Millenium
More people are "packaged" and not as many are "eclectic," it seems.
It's that a "Greg" isn't even attracted to a "Dharma" from the get-go, for the most part.
No. It's that it tends to be "packaged" and seems to pick up a different appellation over the decades.
"hippy" in the 60s and 70s
"granola" in the 80s and 90s
"natural" in the New Millenium
More people are "packaged" and not as many are "eclectic," it seems.
It's that a "Greg" isn't even attracted to a "Dharma" from the get-go, for the most part.
I think this thread has proved that perhaps a "Greg" is attracted to "Dharma." I know some "Gregs" that have been attracted to "Dharmas." Does it matter? I mean - we like what we like. Maybe you aren't attracted to "Dharmas" but that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of guys that feel differently than you.
I still don't see what education has to do with anything. I know some "earthy" types - they all have college degrees and are very intelligent.
I'm confused - what does a person's educational level have to do with your thread?
It seems that the main thing with you is that you don't like liberals -
I think you totally nailed it with this. Probably explains why he wouldnt find the black gal attractive as well.
Here's the deal polyglot, I am a far right leaning conservative, am educated (Stanford) and am heavily into the "granola" lifestyle - I do yoga, I meditate, I postulate, I eat well, I collect guns, I am a lifetime NRA member, I donate to pet rescues, I am against same sex marriages, I am in support of a womans right to choose, I am pretty much into most things that you may consider the "granola/earthy lifestyle" but most of my political views are conservative right. How the h*ll can you somehow try to equate or find some correlation between the two? Oh, you cant. Dewdrop is right, you are just basically saying you hate liberals. But here's a newsflash for you, there are a LOT of people like me - right leaning conservatives who are Earthy. Oh, and we do find women of color to be attractive.
Maybe you aren't attracted to "Dharmas" but that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of guys that feel differently than you.
That's all I was trying to gauge here. And I'm seeing that CD probably isn't a good cross-section of American society. Frankly, I was expecting more "no, thanks."
I think this thread has proved that perhaps a "Greg" is attracted to "Dharma." I know some "Gregs" that have been attracted to "Dharmas." Does it matter? I mean - we like what we like. Maybe you aren't attracted to "Dharmas" but that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of guys that feel differently than you.
I still don't see what education has to do with anything. I know some "earthy" types - they all have college degrees and are very intelligent.
He's trying to fit people into preconceived ideas (box them in really) he has and people are usually far more complex than any stereotypes we cling to.
That's all I was trying to gauge here. And I'm seeing that CD probably isn't a good cross-section of American society. Frankly, I was expecting more "no, thanks."
But what difference would it make either way? I guess I can sort of understand all the people that start threads trying to figure out if people are attracted to the type of person that they are themselves - but I don't really understand starting a thread asking if people are attracted to the type of person that you aren't attracted to. What difference does it make?
He's trying to fit people into preconceived ideas (box them in really) he has and people are usually far more complex than any stereotypes we cling to.
Let's take this on a regional level, to make it easier for you to grasp. If you looked around Boston College, I doubt that MANY of the women would rate highly on the hippy-dippy scale, let alone cause it to move. At Simmons or Smith, it would be another world - thumbs down.
But what difference would it make either way? I guess I can sort of understand all the people that start threads trying to figure out if people are attracted to the type of person that they are themselves - but I don't really understand starting a thread asking if people are attracted to the type of person that you aren't attracted to. What difference does it make?
Did you read the OP? The hypocrisy and double standard rears its ugly head again. I ran the thread because there was a similar thread about "height requirements." Though quantifiable, it is subjective and could be dismissed as shallow. And, those of us who read it could read all the COOing (sp) about tall men.
And the bold goes right back to what I was saying, equals attract and opposites repel...for the most part.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, and we do find women of color to be attractive.
