Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:35 PM
This is a great discussion, but I think some of the disagreement between people is how they are defining the terms. The original post asked about High maintenance vs. independance. You could have a high maintenance person that is independant enough to care of themselves, so the high maintenance would be a mute point. You could have a low maintenance person that cannot seem to do anything for themselves, so their SO is always having to help them out with even the smallest tasks. Of course I say these things based on how I interpret the terms.
The attractiveness thing keeps sneaking into the conversation. It is as if it is assumed that a low maintenance person isn't as physically attractive as a high maintenance person. Someone who cannot go without makeup, hair being done and all dressed up isn't necessarily going to be "eye candy". I can see the physical beauty of a woman with or without the makeup, hairdo or expensive clothing. I am impressed when I see woman that doesn't see the need to put on make up. I appreciate a woman that is comfortable with themselves so that they can go to the grocery store, gas station, home improvement store, even out for the evening for that matter, as they are. Kamala, I would be impressed with a woman that could "@!&%, shower & shave in 10 minutes" Dress clothing is so impractical. I once saw a woman wearing spike heels on a sand bar once, she was obviously high maintenance and stupid! She actually tried walking around with those heels! Whatever!
That is me, I spend a lot of time outside, in the woods and on the water. I do wear a tie to work, but when not at work, I am usually in jeans and a t-shirt, sometimes, just good old grey sweat pants and a T-shirt (I don't care what that song says!!) So my "arm candy" should be able to role out of bed, throw on some jeans, a T-shirt and a ball cap and say "lets go!" And isn't that how most of the people are when they are on a dive trip?
"just your average Joe from Minnesota, also known as Keith"