Does physical attraction need to be immediate? or can it develop overtime?

[Wiseman2]

1 hour ago, Hopeful30 said:

I believe his interest is mutual, at least on the intellectual level (he's expressed that). I'm not sure of his sexual interest.  Seeing as how we've been hanging out alone, I feel more pressure to know this sooner.

Ok this may be a cross-that-bridge-when-you-come-to-it situation. Since he is not specifically indicating attraction or romantic interest at this point, if in the future he does, you can address the "I see you as a friend" issue.

[Hopeful30]

1 hour ago, Weezy1973 said:

How many of your serious relationships started with this type of attraction?

Two of them, and they both ended up being the most abusive and unhealthy relationships. That's why bypassing the sexual attraction part is feasible for me, because I know from experience it's not the most important quality. How MUCH to sacrifice is the question.

 

1 hour ago, Weezy1973 said:

But maybe instead of a 10 level of “throbbing” attraction, a 7 is good enough if they have a lot of the other qualities you’re looking for.

The above relationships in my previous response were both 10s. The next best thing was about 5. The healthiest and best relationship for me was 0-3 (I prioritized relationship qualities over everything else). To be honest I'm less concerned about my personal enjoyment and satisfaction that I am about getting wet enough. If I can't get wet, that's a problem. If I can, then the rest is workable. I know there is only one way to find out (few more dates and see where it goes). I am hesitant because I don't like to try things out, then say "oops, nevermind". It puts me in an uncomfortable position, so I gravitate towards knowing sooner to save myself the discomfort. Also, we run in the same social circles so I want to avoid any awkwardness. Gah! First world problems...

 

47 minutes ago, poppyfields said:

There are never any guarantees in any relationship.  However, again just my opinion, when you begin a relationship with a high attraction (which goes beyond the physical) and a strong chemistry/energy/connection between you, when things get tough, which they will, you can both draw upon those earlier times and attempt to recapture the attraction and passion you once felt.

Does this connection/chemistry/energy need necessarily be sexual in nature? From my experience and learning, sexual chemistry doesn't help couples work through marital challenges like trust, accountability, communication, etc., which are essentially the building blocks of a healthy and long-lasting relationship. If anything, it makes it difficult to walk away from relationships that don't work. 

 

2 minutes ago, Wiseman2 said:

Ok this may be a cross-that-bridge-when-you-come-to-it situation. Since he is not specifically indicating attraction or romantic interest at this point, if in the future he does, you can address the "I see you as a friend" issue.

True. I can go with the flow. Not sure why I'm worked up about this so soon. I think it falls into the 'men and women can't just be friends' category, so I am weighing the possibility of romance from the get-go. 

[poppyfields]

29 minutes ago, Ami1uwant said:

Physical /sexual attraction is not sexual compatibility.  Im not a woman but I though emotional attraction was more 8mportsnt.  Guys are better and separating the two

 

emotional attraction is much more valuable. Physical attraction can change as you get older.  

An "attraction to" another human being entails emotional, mental, physical, sexual and spiritual (if you're into that).

Love isn't borne from mere physical attraction, physical attraction can be fleeting. 

It goes much deeper and I truly believe you need all the elements to sustain a loving, caring, mutually rewarding and harmonious long term relationship.

I'd just like to add fwiw that when you settle, you're also doing your children a great disservice.

They can sense when mommy and daddy aren't "in love" and feel no passion towards each other.  I should know I was raised in such a household. 

My mom was very beautiful and she didn't have to settle but she was incapable of feeling a deep love for a man (or anyone really) so she married my dad who fit all her "requirements" for a good provider and father and their marriage was an absolute disaster. 

And it had a severe negative impact on myself and my brothers growing up.

I received therapy and am now married to a man I am "attracted to" and in love with but my brother has severe anxieties surrounding commitment and is incapable of developing and sustaining a healthy relationship with a woman. 

Edited September 26, 2022 by poppyfields

[Hopeful30]

18 minutes ago, poppyfields said:

An "attraction to" another human being entails emotional, mental, physical, sexual and spiritual (if you're into that).

Love isn't borne from mere physical attraction, physical attraction can be fleeting. 

It goes much deeper and I truly believe you need all the elements to sustain a loving, caring, mutually rewarding and harmonious long term relationship.

I'd just like to add fwiw that when you settle, you're also doing your children a great disservice.

They can sense when mommy and daddy aren't "in love" and feel no passion towards each other.  I should know I was raised in such a household. 

My mom was very beautiful and she didn't have to settle but she was incapable of feeling a deep love for a man (or anyone really) so she married my dad who fit all her "requirements" for a good provider and father and their marriage was an absolute disaster. 

And it had a severe negative impact on myself and my brothers growing up.

I received therapy and am now married to a man I am "attracted to" and in love with but my brother has severe anxieties surrounding commitment and is incapable of developing and sustaining a healthy relationship with a woman. 

I am sorry this was your experience, but remember this isn't everyone's experience. My mother settled for my father too, and despite the fact they're not 'in love', they have a healthy and stable relationship. I aspire to also have such a strong and communicative marriage. I never grew up seeing them passionate about each other, but I saw them as a partnership, a team, always doing things together and finding ways through challenges with their shared values. It sounds like the experiences you had growing up have taught you that passion is what makes a marriage truly work (because that was missing for your parents), but remember that a lack of passionate alone is not enough for the dissolution of a marriage. There were likely many other factors, but as a child the lack of passion was most salient for you. Not all passionate marriages are healthy, and not all healthy marriages are passionate. 

[poppyfields]

37 minutes ago, Hopeful30 said:

It sounds like the experiences you had growing up have taught you that passion is what makes a marriage truly work

Thank you for your post and for reminding me that my experience is not everyone's experience.  I dish out the same advice to others so my bad for not recognizing this.

Anyway, to clarify I don't believe passion is what makes a marriage work, there are many MANY factors that go into making a marriage work.

What I do believe is that starting out with a strong attraction, connection and passion can make things easier down the road when things get tough. 

As I said, you're able to draw upon those early feelings and recapture what had been lost somewhere along the way.  It serves to reinspire both of you, to reinvigorate and rejuvenate a stagnating existence with one another.

I think it's unrealistic for a couple to expect to feel the same level of passion and attraction as time goes on, I certainly don't expect that nor does my husband.   That early passion and attraction will eventually get replaced with something much deeper, a deeper love and respect for each other.

I only recently got married and my husband and I did not date very long prior, but it's what my husband and I aspire to long term.  We understand there will be ups and downs, peaks and valleys, but because we started out with a strong passion and connection, we will always have that to draw upon and hopefully recapture later on down the road.

Is it needed and necessary to sustain a long term relationship or marriage?  NO, but I am glad we experienced it, it is a bond we will always have with each other and that is important to me, and to him.

 

Edited September 26, 2022 by poppyfields

[Ami1uwant]

1 hour ago, Hopeful30 said:

I am sorry this was your experience, but remember this isn't everyone's experience. My mother settled for my father too, and despite the fact they're not 'in love', they have a healthy and stable relationship. I aspire to also have such a strong and communicative marriage. I never grew up seeing them passionate about each other, but I saw them as a partnership, a team, always doing things together and finding ways through challenges with their shared values. It sounds like the experiences you had growing up have taught you that passion is what makes a marriage truly work (because that was missing for your parents), but remember that a lack of passionate alone is not enough for the dissolution of a marriage. There were likely many other factors, but as a child the lack of passion was most salient for you. Not all passionate marriages are healthy, and not all healthy marriages are passionate. 

We have to be careful around the word of settling.

 

what does it mean?

 

In re ent dating it appears settling means you are fine with the 85% match. Others feel someone not 110% is settling.

 

it’s about meeting your core needs in a relationship but not to get hung up on all the nice to haves on your list.

 

you want someone you are compatible with with life and living together. Most ideal is one that comp,emrnts your strengths and weaknesses.

 

part of your parents was the lack of PDAs.

Edited September 26, 2022 by Ami1uwant

[Alpacalia]

2 hours ago, Hopeful30 said:

My hesitation stems from not wanting to lead him on. I've been accused of taking 'too long'. Maybe that's code for "either you do or you don't, stop delaying". 

I think another poster was right, I'm wanting too hard for this to happen. Is it so terrible that I settle for the sake of genuine companionship and having a good (non-physical) time? Is it even healthy to expect a partner to fulfill you in ALL ways?

That's understandable.

It's okay to say you'd like to go out again, but that you don't want to get involved in romance right now.  Maybe you will find something you physically and sexually like about him, or he will find something to dislike about you.

A first date earlier this year comes to mind. I found him physically attractive, smart, etc. though I felt that his personality and mannerisms did not resonate with me (one being overly forward). He was still very forward on the first date, so I declined a second date.

When you intentionally deceive someone into believing that you have feelings for them, you are leading them on.

Agreeing to a second date is one thing. If you never develop feelings for him and keep seeing him and making irrelevant excuses, entirely different.

The only thing you can do is to be honest with yourself and others, and not allow others to blame you for their expectations. Taking responsibility for another person's feelings isn't your job. The only responsibility you have is not to be dishonest.

I do want to circle back though to your comment about "dating him because you have been single for so long." 

Tell me more (please).

This statement implies loneliness. Perhaps a bit of low self-esteem? If that's the case, value yourself, value his time, don't mislead anyone so that you won't feel lonely.

 

 

[Hopeful30]

16 minutes ago, Alpacalia said:

I do want to circle back though to your comment about "dating him because you have been single for so long." 

Tell me more (please).

This statement implies loneliness. Perhaps a bit of low self-esteem? If that's the case, value yourself, value his time, don't mislead anyone so that you won't feel lonely.

Thanks for your response  I don't feel lonely, and I'm a confident person. When we hung out, he mentioned that I have an inner confidence that he doesn't see in many people. I have been single for over 6 years which was around the time I promised to never sacrifice myself or 'settle'. During that time I've advanced my career, made great friends, moved into a new place, etc. Throughout, what's been missing is romance. Despite going on dates and meeting men, I haven't met anyone who ticked all the boxes. Even the first 5 boxes, one of which includes sexual chemistry. That's why I'm reconsidering these boxes. I don't really enjoy the freedoms of being single like many others, such as casual sex, parties, doing what you want when you want, and not checking in with someone. I prefer sex with one person, I prefer to check in with someone, I prefer compromising for a greater goal. I enjoy the structure of relationships. I enjoy intimacy and comfort, bonding, trust, even working together through challenging times. That's why I'm trying to be more open and realistic. I feel like I'm already a wife without a husband lol if that makes any sense. All else has fallen into place.

What do you think?

[poppyfields]

1 hour ago, Hopeful30 said:

I haven't met anyone who ticked all the boxes. Even the first 5 boxes, one of which includes sexual chemistry. That's why I'm reconsidering these boxes. I don't really enjoy the freedoms of being single like many others, such as casual sex, parties, doing what you want when you want, and not checking in with someone. I prefer sex with one person, I prefer to check in with someone, I prefer compromising for a greater goal. I enjoy the structure of relationships. I enjoy intimacy and comfort, bonding, trust, even working together through challenging times. That's why I'm trying to be more open and realistic. I feel like I'm already a wife without a husband lol if that makes any sense. All else has fallen into place.

What do you think?

@Hopeful30, I think it's great to aspire to all those things, it's what I aspire to as well with my husband - sex with one person, have someone to "check-in" with, compromising for a greater goal, the structure, the comfort, the emotional intimacy and bonding, trust - ALL those things.

However, I think you might be hard-pressed to find a man who wants those things WITHOUT the sexual attraction, sexual chemistry and sexual intimacy. 

Most men do, sex is hugely important to them.

I am curious to know about this new man.  How do you think he would feel and respond upon learning that you feel no sexual attraction to him? 

Or are you hoping that in time you will develop a sexual attraction to him?

Or would you go through the motions of having sex with him, even if you don't enjoy it or aren't feeling it? 

I am wondering how that would work for you, and him!

Again I think it's great to aspire to those things, I am just not sure how easy it will be for you to find a man who's on board with that without the sexual component.

Especially a younger man, in his 30s, like you, or even 40s.

I just read a post on another forum from a man in his 50s, who still enjoys a healthy, active sexual relationship with his wife of 20 years.

That is what I aspire to with my husband, along with all the other things mentioned.

But I wish you luck in finding him, I truly do.

 

Edited September 27, 2022 by poppyfields

[basil67]

6 hours ago, Hopeful30 said:

Is it so terrible that I settle for the sake of genuine companionship and having a good (non-physical) time? Is it even healthy to expect a partner to fulfill you in ALL ways?

@Hopeful30 while I agree that a partner can't fulfill us in all ways, a non sexual relationship is called a friendship.   So, yes he could make a good friend, but he'd still be wanting a romantic relationship and any new woman isn't going to be happy with you on the side as his frequent companion.  It just won't work.

 

[poppyfields]

@Hopeful30would you consider yourself to be asexual?  I only ask as I am getting the distinct impression that sexual intimacy/relations just don't interest you which is OKAY.  There are many people who feel like you but still desire the emotional connection and bond, etc you discussed earlier.

Anyway, just a suggested but there are dating apps, websites, groups and events geared towards asexual people who again desire close emotionally intimate connections and relationships but without the sexual component.

I just researched it and such couples are physically affectionate, they sleep together, they cuddle, they even kiss (non passionately).  They share the same values and goals, things you aspire to.

Just something to consider because as I and @basil67 said, a non-sexual relationship is essentially a friendship, and I think you might be hard pressed to find a man on a regular dating app or in the real world who would be on board with what you're wanting in that regard.

Edited September 27, 2022 by poppyfields

[Alpacalia]

7 hours ago, Hopeful30 said:

Thanks for your response  I don't feel lonely, and I'm a confident person. When we hung out, he mentioned that I have an inner confidence that he doesn't see in many people. I have been single for over 6 years which was around the time I promised to never sacrifice myself or 'settle'. During that time I've advanced my career, made great friends, moved into a new place, etc. Throughout, what's been missing is romance. Despite going on dates and meeting men, I haven't met anyone who ticked all the boxes. Even the first 5 boxes, one of which includes sexual chemistry. That's why I'm reconsidering these boxes. I don't really enjoy the freedoms of being single like many others, such as casual sex, parties, doing what you want when you want, and not checking in with someone. I prefer sex with one person, I prefer to check in with someone, I prefer compromising for a greater goal. I enjoy the structure of relationships. I enjoy intimacy and comfort, bonding, trust, even working together through challenging times. That's why I'm trying to be more open and realistic. I feel like I'm already a wife without a husband lol if that makes any sense. All else has fallen into place.

What do you think?

You are very welcome.

I think you're putting a lot of pressure on yourself to feel a certain way. 

You said that you're attracted to him intellectually, correct?

You might find him overweight (just as an example). Toss out any self-criticism you might feel at this point if you can't look past his weight. If the physical chemistry isn't there and a person's weight cannot be overlooked, accept it. Trying to force a romantic relationship solely based on intellectual compatibility isn't fair if you're not physically attracted to him. 

Maybe you can't pinpoint the exact reason for the lack of initial physical attraction. Physical attraction can't be forced. It can grow based on the emotional responses we have when we’re with someone. As there is no single way to love someone, there is no single way to be attracted to them, either. This can sometimes be puzzling if, for instance, you love someone but don't feel drawn to them sexually. What is attractive to some is attractive to others, but makes others cringe. 

Attraction is profoundly personal.

Just my two cents but I also don't find physical attraction just based on aesthetic, either. It is more about the craving of wanting to be physically close to a particular person and to touch them or have them touch you.

I mean, I recall one date with this one man. I wasn't particularly drawn to him physically initially but after the second date I was lit on fire!

In any event, if there's enough doubt in your mind, then it's probably not worth doing the due diligence of going on another date and seeing if something could be brewing. 

By then, you would probably have an idea of his personality and be over the awkward interview-like experience of the first few dates. Because if you're not attracted to him either physically or mentally, then it's probably a no-go.

 

 

[Weezy1973]

12 hours ago, Hopeful30 said:

The above relationships in my previous response were both 10s. The next best thing was about 5. The healthiest and best relationship for me was 0-3 (I prioritized relationship qualities over everything else).

It’s interesting that there seems to be an inverse correlation between physical attraction and relationship qualities. The “10s” were toxic and the best relationship you had was with someone that you were pretty much repulsed by physically. It sounds to me like you have a very good idea of the qualities that make for a healthy relationship so you’re on the right track. Being with someone that you’re not attracted to at all is not the answer though. By no means should you hold out for a “10” on the attraction meter. But a 0-3 should be equally unacceptable. 

[Wiseman2]

10 hours ago, Hopeful30 said:

. I feel like I'm already a wife without a husband 

Just take your time getting to know each other. Since you claim you're not even sure whether it's a date or not, you'll have to see how it goes. Try not to think of yourself or anyone else as a future spouse. It's way too soon for that.

[ZA Dater]

10 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

It’s interesting that there seems to be an inverse correlation between physical attraction and relationship qualities. The “10s” were toxic and the best relationship you had was with someone that you were pretty much repulsed by physically. It sounds to me like you have a very good idea of the qualities that make for a healthy relationship so you’re on the right track. Being with someone that you’re not attracted to at all is not the answer though. By no means should you hold out for a “10” on the attraction meter. But a 0-3 should be equally unacceptable. 

At the risk of taking serious stick. Why would a 0-3 being unacceptable? If one ONLY looks at the qualities of the person would physical attributes not be completely irrelevant? The difficult thing is defining what attraction is and how it can grow, in my view this will differ for everyone. 

OP I think you could become attracted over time but the intangible things would probably need to be very attractive. For some context I spent most of my life believing that it was impossible to overcome a lack of physical attraction but trying to promote other attributes.

[giotto]

Never happened to me. There must be physical attraction. I have never fallen in love with a person I didn't find attractive. Even if not super attractive, there must be some attraction. 

Edited September 27, 2022 by giotto

[slippinglimpse]

19 hours ago, poppyfields said:

Sapiosexual is defined as:

>>finding intelligence sexually attractive or arousing.

So not sure that applies here since OP does not find him sexually attractive or appealing.

 

"The intellectual stimulation is nice though. think that's why I keep coming back...a different kind of arousal  curious if it can translate into sexual..."

I was responding to her questioning above.

[Hopeful30]

15 hours ago, poppyfields said:

@Hopeful30

I am just not sure how easy it will be for you to find a man who's on board with that without the sexual component.

I've not considered that. Just as well, I haven't heard from him since the weekend so maybe that's an answer of itself. Can men sense these things early on (if a woman is sexually attracted to him)?

 

14 hours ago, poppyfields said:

@Hopeful30would you consider yourself to be asexual? 

No. I regularly have sex dreams and self-loving. But it's not the same.

 

8 hours ago, Alpacalia said:

Toss out any self-criticism you might feel at this point if you can't look past his weight.

I am experiencing exactly this. I feel that being single for so long means there's something wrong with me. Somehow I feel the answer is to change myself. After all, I am the common denominator. 

 

6 hours ago, Wiseman2 said:

Try not to think of yourself or anyone else as a future spouse. 

You nailed it on the head. This is exactly how I see men. I have husband lenses on. In a previous post I mentioned that men and women can't just be friends (in my opinion and experience). So either they're a potential lover/partner or nothing at all. It sounds harsh but I'm actively looking for a mate. I'm at a point in my life where there's room for this to develop and thrive. And I want it. I'm ready. 

[poppyfields]

1 hour ago, Hopeful30 said:

Can men sense these things early on (if a woman is sexually attracted to him)?

In my experience, yes absolutely!  And it hugely matters to them.

That doesn't mean you should be falling all over him; it's simply a vibe, the energy you project. 

Also, this was mentioned earlier but genuine "attraction" and "chemistry" tend to be mutual; it's happening between the both of you, simultaneously. 

It's an energy between you that goes beyond merely the physical, although obviously that plays a part, but it's subjective. 

No words even need to be spoken, it's simply something you both feel.

My take is the reason you have not heard from him was, basically, nothing was happening between you, no spark, no energy, no chemistry, no mutual attraction.

That is why I said you might be hard-pressed to find a man who's on board with everything you're needing and wanting without the sexual attraction.

Which is where and how it all begins.  Otherwise, it's a friendship.

Most men upon meeting a new woman are not interested in that. 

Which I think may be what happened here. 

Edited September 27, 2022 by poppyfields

[Lotsgoingon]

One criteria can be this: Can you stop asking the question?

Can you put to bed (quit asking yourself) the question of "am I really attracted to this person?"

If you continue to ask that question, then that's your answer--you're not sufficiently attracted.  If you are sufficiently attracted, you'll be able to stop asking that question. You'll focus on  enjoying the relationship and trying to making it work.  And it may or may not work no matter how attracted you are. 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2022 by Lotsgoingon

[Wiseman2]

2 hours ago, Hopeful30 said:

This is exactly how I see men. I have husband lenses on.  It sounds harsh but I'm actively looking for a mate. 

Ok well men can sense this. This man seems like he may checks some boxes on the future husband list, but if you're not attracted enough it's not going to go far.

[poppyfields]

22 hours ago, Hopeful30 said:

My mother settled for my father too, and despite the fact they're not 'in love', they have a healthy and stable relationship. I aspire to also have such a strong and communicative marriage. I never grew up seeing them passionate about each other, but I saw them as a partnership, a team, always doing things together and finding ways through challenges with their shared values.

@Hopeful30, in thinking more about your response above, I am wondering if your mother settling and your parents not being in love and lacking passion in their marriage had more of a negative effect on you than you think.

Because, now as an adult, admittedly, you have difficulty experiencing attraction and chemistry (in the normal sense) and even differentiating feelings of attraction and chemistry from non-sexual platonic relationships. 

Telling us in one post that the "the instant chemistry you felt was related to conversation and generally feeling comfortable around him, and asking if this is enough to sustain a relationship where the instant "spark" (attraction) is not there."

THAT is a friendship and no not sustainable in a healthy long term romantic sexual relationship or marriage. 

There is nothing wrong or bad for not wanting that for yourself, but it's important to be realistic and not expect the men you meet and date to be on board with this.  Like this current man who as of earlier this morning, you had not heard from since your last meet.

As I said earlier, there are apps and websites for people seeking what you are and my suggestion would be to seek out people on those apps.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2022 by poppyfields

[Hopeful30]

2 hours ago, Lotsgoingon said:

One criteria can be this: Can you stop asking the question?

Can you put to bed (quit asking yourself) the question of "am I really attracted to this person?"

If you continue to ask that question, then that's your answer--you're not sufficiently attracted.  If you are sufficiently attracted, you'll be able to stop asking that question. You'll focus on  enjoying the relationship and trying to making it work.  And it may or may not work no matter how attracted you are. 

You're right. There would be no doubt or question if it was there. Thanks for this 

 

4 minutes ago, poppyfields said:

@Hopeful30, in thinking more about your response above, I am wondering if your mother settling and your parents not being in love and lacking passion in their marriage had more of a negative effect on you than you think.

I think it taught me that sexual chemistry and passion is not necessary for a healthy and successful marriage. 

[poppyfields]

2 minutes ago, Hopeful30 said:

I think it taught me that sexual chemistry and passion is not necessary for a healthy and successful marriage.

That's fair but keep in mind you did not witness what went on behind closed doors.   You only witnessed what your parents allowed you to witness, which was they worked as a team, were devoted to family and appeared happy.

But appearances can be deceiving, and you really don't know what they truly felt or what their dynamic was like other than what they allowed you to see.

I am not saying this to make you feel badly, obviously you had a very happy childhood.

I am only suggesting that not having witnessed your parents in love and all that entails (physical affection, kissing, passion, etc), it has obviously impacted you and how you view relationships and marriage as an adult.

I mean how could it not?

Like I said, it's not a bad thing, it is what it is and I hope you find what you're seeking, I truly do.

[Weezy1973]

1 hour ago, Hopeful30 said:

 

I think it taught me that sexual chemistry and passion is not necessary for a healthy and successful marriage. 

I’d caution against black and white thinking like either there is sexual chemistry and passion or there isn’t. I think it’s fair to say that sexual chemistry and passion have nothing to do with a  successful marriage, and I suspect there are many unsuccessful marriages where people put undue importance on the sexual chemistry and ignored actual important relationship qualities only to regret it later.

But that doesn’t mean sexual chemistry and passion isn’t necessary. There needs to be some degree of mutual attraction - again it doesn’t have to be off the charts intense, but it also can’t be completely missing. And through most long term marriages the level of intensity is bound to wax and wane regardless. The saying that when the sex life is good it accounts for about 10% of the good in the marriage and when the sex life is bad, it accounts for 90% of the problem seems apt.