thatone Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 I think physical attraction is important... before I think twice about a guy, I've always asked myself if I want to sleep with him. If the answer is no, then it doesn't matter how nice or kind or smart or accomplished or wonderful he is. To me, a marriage includes sex, and if I am not physically attracted to him, I'm not going to want to have sex with him. For me, sex is an everyday way to show love with one person. I think emotional and intellectual connections are important too, but that's not what keeps marriages/relationships together. What keeps marriages/relationships together are shared goals, commitment, and trust. Without those, then a relationship with mutual physical attraction, chemistry, emotional connection, and intellectual connection is just not going to cut it in the long term. how many times has someone told you that the first thing you said contradicts the second? i'll bet a lot, or if they didn't tell you, they definitely picked up on it.
rafallus Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 Then "objective beauty" sounds like pretty arbitrary and meaningless concept, created just for the sake of being created. If it's taken as average, then there may be people, to whom "beauty" isn't beautiful at all - it's just that to 99% it is, but there happens to be 1%, which crashes the party. Beauty not being beautiful (even in individual case) - nice paradox. While I agree that unlike time, which we've found a way to (supposedly ) objectively quantify, we haven't found a pure measurement for objective beauty. Issue with time is, you won't risk offending anybody, trying to measure it. Measure is arbitrary, but universally agreed upon, because otherwise whole life as we know it would turn into disorganized mess. Not so with beauty. Beauty is such a tricky subject - a minefield to thread. Attraction is simple in practice - either it is in place or not - but why is a different story.
zengirl Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 Then "objective beauty" sounds like pretty arbitrary and meaningless concept, created just for the sake of being created. If it's taken as average, then there may be people, to whom "beauty" isn't beautiful at all - it's just that to 99% it is, but there happens to be 1%, which crashes the party. Beauty not being beautiful (even in individual case) - nice paradox. Issue with time is, you won't risk offending anybody, trying to measure it. Measure is arbitrary, but universally agreed upon, because otherwise whole life as we know it would turn into disorganized mess. Not so with beauty. Beauty is such a tricky subject - a minefield to thread. Attraction is simple in practice - either it is in place or not - but why is a different story. I don't disagree with you on most of your points, but we're getting tangential. My point upthread was: I do think people put up their own psychological roadblocks having to do with a more objective beauty point (caring about how society views their mate, etc, without even realizing it in many cases) that hinders their ability to feel innate attraction that is often there. A poster had posited that men are more likely to do this, and I said, it really depends on socialization and socialization seems to be trending away from that for men while it's trending towards that for women, so in younger generations, I actually believe women do it more.
thatone Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 A poster had posited that men are more likely to do this, and I said, it really depends on socialization and socialization seems to be trending away from that for men while it's trending towards that for women, so in younger generations, I actually believe women do it more. i agree and you have to ask yourself why that is the case. my answer = because younger women behave like bad men used to behave, so men simply ignore them and pick someone who doesn't have the ability to trade up. and as evidenced by all of their complaints on this forum, those younger women are learning the hard way that they can't keep the men they're after, any more than the older men could keep their 25 year old trophy wives happy decade(s) ago.
Mme. Chaucer Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 In my experience, you are physically attracted to a person because you have passion for that person, not the opposite. I have met very pretty/hot women for whom I didn't feel any spark or emotionnal bond. I would forget them the next minute I left. On the other side, my most passionate relationships were with average-looking women who were able to build a fantastic emotional connection. The more I felt connected, the more I would find them cute/pretty. It is funny how some (objectively) physical flaws can become cute in your eyes when you are in love with that person. The perspective can also change with the age. Young people (up to 25-30) overestimate lookings over personality. The older you get, the more the intellectual connection becomes important. This is how I feel. Except, I have relationships with men rather than women. There are those among us for whom NO amount of physical attraction, intellectual and emotional connection, material success, and everything else combined can be "enough" to make a "lasting" relationship possible. I even think that applying the concept of "enough" physical attraction, or "enough" of anything else, is a guarantee of failure with any relationship. People fit together, or they do not. If they do fit, then it takes commitment, work, willingness to be vulnerable and to trust, and to give, to put oneself second at times and to know when to put oneself first, in order for a "lasting" relationship to develop, no matter what attributes, sparks and flames are present or absent. The longer the people intend for the relationship to last, the more they will be required to put in all the things I mentioned above ... and more.
FrustratedStandards Posted August 24, 2011 Posted August 24, 2011 Personally, ive never been attracted to any of my boyfriends. I started dating them because they seemed nice and were good to me. I seldom enjoyed the sex, and physically was never attracted to any of them. The men that I AM attracted to physically are NOT relationship material at all. For me it has always been one or the other, unfortunately. I prefer compatibility over good sex. Theres always toys, and they get the job done better anyways
runner Posted August 24, 2011 Posted August 24, 2011 Totally agree!!! Settling is such a weird and unnatural way of looking at finding a mate. It's not settling. It's becoming a part of a beautiful 1 which includes 2 persons. It's beautiful and natural and is belonging. So instead of using the word settling, people who have met their life mate consider it to be "belonging" Life mates don't settle. They love and belong to each other. It's peace and calm and exciting and it's strong. It's a connection that leaves no room for "maybe there's someone better out there..." It is the realization "Hey, you make the earth more like Heaven!!!" well said. i think the the concept of "settling" really only applies to the immature and vain. people who are concerned about arm/eye candy. the more you know yourself, you'll know it if the other person works for you. you know it almost instinctively. and you couldn't give a **** what others have to say about it (ie, "settling") back to the OP tho- i believe physical attraction is important, but it's only one piece of the overall package. and it hasn't always been immediately evident, IME.
Star Gazer Posted August 24, 2011 Posted August 24, 2011 And yet, it didn't last..... He is dead... OMG... I'm so sorry to hear that.
Author Eternal Sunshine Posted August 24, 2011 Author Posted August 24, 2011 Physical spark is a spark, not fuel. It's what starts a relationship, not what makes it last. Of course, it's a quality which has its advantages, but we all have qualities. I think there are more important qualities to consider for commitment. Although it's a little tangential to this thread, it helps to remember that even Uma Thurman got cheated on. I don't know if you saw this in your last cluster**** thread, so I'll say it here again: I like your haircut! Although I will say that you should post a picture of it that isn't being taken from the perspective of your bellybutton. That's not really the first vantage point I'd think of when wanting to show off a new haircut. It's probably the last vantage point I'd think of, actually. I was trying to be artistic Also, I prefer having an avatar from which I wouldn't be immedietly recognizable if someone that knows me saw me....
Nexus One Posted August 24, 2011 Posted August 24, 2011 (edited) I was trying to be artistic Also, I prefer having an avatar from which I wouldn't be immedietly recognizable if someone that knows me saw me.... Looks good ES. It looks a bit like a kind of Leeloo haircut, but blonde instead of orange. http://bit.ly/qpCqXw Edited August 24, 2011 by Nexus One
BetheButterfly Posted August 24, 2011 Posted August 24, 2011 Sometimes you may FIRST have no sexual attraction to someone, then when you get to know the person closer you may be like "hmmm, I wonder what it would be like under the sheets :love:" Naah BRAIN is the biggest sex organ True Either you are too young or not experienced enough.. or different from you
BetheButterfly Posted August 24, 2011 Posted August 24, 2011 how many times has someone told you that the first thing you said contradicts the second? You are the first who said the first thing contradicts the second actually. i'll bet a lot, or if they didn't tell you, they definitely picked up on it. Explain yourself... what's so contradicting about it?
BetheButterfly Posted August 24, 2011 Posted August 24, 2011 Physical spark is a spark, not fuel. It's what starts a relationship, not what makes it last. Of course, it's a quality which has its advantages, but we all have qualities. I think there are more important qualities to consider for commitment. Agreed Physical attraction never guarantees a relationship will work.
Recommended Posts