Attraction
05 Oct 2013, 6:00 pm
And I really didn't think there was an argument. Please tell me where I have disrespected you. I have nothing but respect for you.
Actually, no, that will do.
Attraction...there are many levels. To say there is one kind of attraction is simplistic. Attraction is, in nature, chemical confusion designed to hijack logical thinking and create relationships which leads to children. However, to say that this will always be an overriding faction in forming relationships is somewhat assuming that we are mere walking chemistry sets.
Generalizations: Physical attarction only operates on one level. There is the physical attraction in a sexual sense, physical attraction in accordance with what your friends/society think attraction is, physical attraction as how you appear is infact a statement that implies what your personality might be, which is more related to personal grooming/clothing choice, physical attraction as an element of confidence as to how you hold yourself, etc etc.
Chemical? Chemical attraction only works in close proximity and is genetic/random. You have no control over it, *waves away smokescreen*. The whole chemistry argument is unrelated to physical attraction since its not related to appearance based physical attraction. You can't invalidate something nobody is arguing for. I mean you CAN, but meh.
_________________
Formerly I 80% N 85% T 80% P 15%, INTP, philosopher. Now E 60% N 65% F 90% P 15%, ENFP, ray of sunshine, unless i'm moody.
It clicked one day. I have empathy now. It has downsides i didn't expect. It's going somewhat poorly, since people tend to suck at new things. That's how you know it's true.
05 Oct 2013, 6:18 pm
I think we're confusing emotional (as opposed to physical) attraction with a desire for friendship, within a relationship. Being best friends with your relationship-partner is a relatively new concept, that's only really been prevalent for the last few decades. As such, i would classify it as a bonus, since it seems unnessisary. 1million years/6000years vs 30-40 years.
I know some people want to boink their best friend, but that's probably more for the hell of it.
The attraction as per the topic, is related to a potential partner. Nowadays, that's related to having an emotional/common-interests connection, but if you require your partner to be all those things, it probably just indicates that you need to use him/her as a crutch. Therefore it's not the ideal we're aiming for.
Love, as opposed to friendship love, is the objective. Having connections on many levels as a relationship prerequisite is probably just destructive to what you truely want deep down. To deny your body's reactions is to try to stand above yourself.
It's all physical, the people that desire a perfect partner in every way are just picky. Or better yet, they don't get along with people in general. The foundation is physical, and nothing else is required. It's just icing.
_________________
Formerly I 80% N 85% T 80% P 15%, INTP, philosopher. Now E 60% N 65% F 90% P 15%, ENFP, ray of sunshine, unless i'm moody.
It clicked one day. I have empathy now. It has downsides i didn't expect. It's going somewhat poorly, since people tend to suck at new things. That's how you know it's true.
05 Oct 2013, 6:35 pm
I think the doctors would be more concerned with his lack of testicles and adrenal glands. I personally wouldn't be oggling the nurse. I'd be praying my heart didn't stop from lack of bodily chemicals.
Where is this hypothetical going?
_________________
Formerly I 80% N 85% T 80% P 15%, INTP, philosopher. Now E 60% N 65% F 90% P 15%, ENFP, ray of sunshine, unless i'm moody.
It clicked one day. I have empathy now. It has downsides i didn't expect. It's going somewhat poorly, since people tend to suck at new things. That's how you know it's true.
05 Oct 2013, 6:42 pm
hahaha!
I don't know where it's going. Just unpicking the tangled strands of what constitutes attraction. How much does testosterone contribute towards physical attraction. And what sort of attraction will there be if the chemical is absent or a low level - or if even testosterone has anything to do with attraction itself. I'm guessing not - perhaps it's the means of message delivery, and not the message itself, but that's just a guess.
05 Oct 2013, 6:55 pm
^ As for testosterone, it came up in a previous thread. Less = better relationship, more = more sexy time with different ladies. It's mainly just related to aggression. The chemicals you're looking for are reward chemicals, probably. The ones we get when we do something good and are rewarded. Maybe Google what chemicals are released when the body experiences an org***... at the end of procreation. They're probably the culprits.
_________________
Formerly I 80% N 85% T 80% P 15%, INTP, philosopher. Now E 60% N 65% F 90% P 15%, ENFP, ray of sunshine, unless i'm moody.
It clicked one day. I have empathy now. It has downsides i didn't expect. It's going somewhat poorly, since people tend to suck at new things. That's how you know it's true.
05 Oct 2013, 7:02 pm
Thanks, will look it up sometime.
No, I'm not looking to reward chemicals - endorphins, and oxymowoxy whatever it is (hugging/bonding chemical). That's at the end of the line, and can hardly initiate a process (beyond some anticipation, perhaps) What I mean is, testosterone as a vehicle (and it can apply to women, especially noticable at the point when HRT begins)
Observation of opposite sex - aesthetic appreciation - (chemical activated to move message) - physical attraction
Observation of opposite sex - aesthetic appreciation - (no/little chemical to activate to move message) - end of line.
05 Oct 2013, 7:23 pm
^ So you're trying to pinpoint the source of horniness? *faceplant*
_________________
Formerly I 80% N 85% T 80% P 15%, INTP, philosopher. Now E 60% N 65% F 90% P 15%, ENFP, ray of sunshine, unless i'm moody.
It clicked one day. I have empathy now. It has downsides i didn't expect. It's going somewhat poorly, since people tend to suck at new things. That's how you know it's true.
05 Oct 2013, 8:13 pm
*beep* Lost561 can't come to the thread at the moment, but if you'd like to leave your handle, and timezone, after the tone, he'll be able to add you to his list. *beeeeeep*
05 Oct 2013, 9:56 pm
*beep* Lost561 can't come to the thread at the moment, but if you'd like to leave your handle, and timezone, after the tone, he'll be able to add you to his list. *beeeeeep*
The argument isn't whether or not men judge by looks. It's whether women judge by looks too. And they do too. We are all human. True attraction is based on looks.
05 Oct 2013, 10:46 pm
*beep* Lost561 can't come to the thread at the moment, but if you'd like to leave your handle, and timezone, after the tone, he'll be able to add you to his list. *beeeeeep*
The argument isn't whether or not men judge by looks. It's whether women judge by looks too. And they do too. We are all human. True attraction is based on looks.
I think the main problem is that people against you are arguing in favor of an IDEAL. How they imagine a perfect partner to be. There's an element of projected ego there, since nobody wants to associate their fantasy man/woman with shallowness.
It's really only after you accept that attraction is physical for both sexs that you can move on and build on that.
As an added note, it's probably essential for US specifically to be physically attracted to our partner. I get very twitchy if i'm required to give constant half-truisms to my partner, or even worse, of they ask me to provide an objective analysis of how they look. Physical attraction is an overriding, primary factor. It is the only primary.
It's not a big deal though. Physical attraction is easy to figure out, and thankfully, i don't seem to be ridiculously picky. I think there's this strange belief among the opposing idealists that we spend all our time concentrating on the physical. I spend all my time on other factors, like personality. The physical is just a qualifier.
There was this girl when i was in high school, and i used to tell idealist dudes to go date her if they really believed what they said. She wasn't ugly, and was as sweet as a kitten, yet was off everyone's radar, because she most certainly wasn't beautiful. Being built like a tank was probably the issue.
She was pre-disqualified in almost everyone's mind. She's currently engaged to a 'decent' looking Engineer. That's a 4year university degree.
The moral? Physical is #1 for everyone. You just disqualify people so quickly you think it's only a minor factor. Tell that to the disqualified people.
_________________
Formerly I 80% N 85% T 80% P 15%, INTP, philosopher. Now E 60% N 65% F 90% P 15%, ENFP, ray of sunshine, unless i'm moody.
It clicked one day. I have empathy now. It has downsides i didn't expect. It's going somewhat poorly, since people tend to suck at new things. That's how you know it's true.
06 Oct 2013, 4:28 am
So is it the same for unattractive people? I.E. A technically bad looking person is not necessarily unattractive to you? Like the short, fat, bald guy even if he had great social skills.
I dated a guy that most women would consider 'unattractive' AT ALL. He was not fat or bald, but just not typically attractive.
There's is no stock in that comment; that is only your opinion that most women would find him unattractive.
You like to post comments using examples of yourself, justifying that's how "it" goes in real life for everybody.
It hate to tell you the truth because it debunks the picture you have of life, men and women, but MOST women would not find this mans face (or body) particularly attractive. Most of my friends have told me that. He is very skinny, has almost no hair and even misses a front tooth. All of his pictures that he posted on dating sites have ratings between 3.5 and 5.5 on a scale from 1 to 10.
And I would never say 'it' goes some certain way for everybody, that's your black and white interpretation of my messages. Plenty of people have told you that already, and you know it very well.
I would have to see a picture of the 2 of you to see what your talking about. Perhaps your more unattractive than you think?
It's not that your trying to debunk my theories on love & dating; you are posting yours as if they matter. Why post at all without a purpose? You obviously have a purpose with your posts and that is to promote that things work in the real world "according to you" because that's how you think and act.
I can go get a bunch of posts you've made in various threads where you do post messages that have the tone that I just described.
And besides from you, hale bopp, geeky, waffle marine , and maybe 1 other person that doesn't agree with me, the majority of people here agree with me.. Except the radical feminists.
We were not talking about my attractiveness whatsoever, so there is absolutely no need to bring this up. And you obviously have a problem interpretating many peoples posts. My posts 'matter' just as much as everybody else's. I am not trying to 'promote' anything, unlike you.
Nah, not really
